(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Study of problems encountered by students transferring from baccalaureate degree-granting institutions with implications for the University of Florida"

A STUDY OF PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED BY STUDENTS 

TR.^NSFERRING FROM BACCALAUREATE DEGREE - 

GRANTING INSTITUTIONS WITH IMPLICATIONS 

FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 



by 
Carl M. Hite 



A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF 
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 
1975 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The support and assistance needed to complete this 
study came from many individuals and this writer wishes to 
express appreciation to all those who provided such. A 
special word of thanks is given to Dr. James Wattenbarger 
for his help and guidance as chairman of the doctoral committee 
and director of the dissertation. 

Special recognition is also due Drs. Harold C. Riker and 
George S. Henry for their assistance in the formulation and 
completion of the study and their guidance as members of the 
doctoral committee. 

The writer would also like to thank Alice Price for her 
help with and typing of this study. 

Thanks are also due Dr. Michael Nunnery and the students 
in his proposal writing class, whose help was invaluable in 
completing the proposal associated with this study. 

Finally, the writer wishes to express particular 
appreciation to his wife, Clare, and their son, Kevin, for their 
patience, unwavering support, and many personal sacrifices 
in making this effort possible. 



11 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii 

LIST OF TABLES iv 

ABSTRACT viii 

CHAPTER 

I INTRODUCTION 1 

The Problem 5 

Sources Of The Data and Procedures Used. ... 11 

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 18 

III ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 43 

The Data in Review 87 

IV DISCUSSION OF DATA 91 

Summary 110 

V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS .... 113 

Summary 113 

Conclusions 119 

Implications 122 

APPENDIX 

A Questionnaire Used to Gather Data 129 

B Request Letter to Transfer Students 133 

C First Follow-up Letter 134 

D Second Follow-up Letter 135 

REFERENCES 136 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 140 



111 



LIST OF TABLES 



Table Page 

1 Frequency Distribution of Transfer 

Students By Sex 45 

2 Frequency Distribution of Transfer 

Students By Race 46 

3 Frequency Distribution of Transfer 

Students By Marital Status 46 

4 Frequency Distribution of Transfer 

Students By Age 47 

5 Frequency Distribution of Transfer 

Students by Payment of Fees 48 

6 Frequency Distribution of Transfer 

Students By Living Arrangement 49 

7 Frequency Distribution of Transfer 

Students By Veteran Status 49 

8 Distribution of Most Commonly 

Identified Majors 50 

9 Frequency Distribution of Transfer 
Students By College Enrolled in, Fall 

Quarter, 1974 52 

10 Frequency Distribution of Transfer 
Students By Approximate Grade Point 

Average at Previous Institution 53 

11 Frequency Distribution of Transfer 

Students By Financial Aid Situation 54 

12 Frequency Distribution of Transfer 

Students By Educational Goals 55 

13 Frequency Distribution of Transfer 
Students By Student Classification, 

Fall Quarter, 1974 56 



IV 



LIST OF TABLES - Continued 



Table Page 

14 Frequency Distribution of Transfer 
Students By Student Status, Fall 

Quarter, 1974 57 

15 Frequency Distribution of Transfer 
Students By Parents' Estimated Annual 

Income 57 

16 Frequency Distribution of Multi-College 
Transfer Students By Types of College 
Previously Attended 59 

17 Frequency Distribution of One-College 
Transfer Students by Type of Control 

of College Transferred From 60 

18 Frequency Distribution of One-College 
Transfer Students by Size of College 
Previously Attended 61 

19 Frequency Distribution by States of 
Institutions Previously Attended 62 

20 Number and Rank Order of Responses to 
Reasons for Leaving Previous Institution 

of One-College Transfer Students 64 

21 Number and Rank Order of Responses to 
Reasons for Leaving Previous Institution 

of Multi-College Transfer Students . . 65 

22 Frequency Distribution of "Other" 

Reasons for Leaving Previous Institution. ... 66 

23 Number and Rank Order of Responses to 
Reasons for Transferring to the University 

of Florida of One-College Transfer Students . . 68 

24 Number and Rank Order of Responses to 
Reasons for Transferring to the University 
of Florida of Multi-College Transfer 

Students 69 



LIST OF TABLES - Continued 



Table Page 

25 Frequency Distribution of "Other" 
Reasons for Transferring to the University 

of Florida 70 

26 Frequency Distribution and Rank Order 
of Responses to Academic Problems 
Encountered by One-College Transfer 

Students 71 

27 Frequency Distribution and Rank Order 
of Responses to Academic Problems 
Encountered by Multi-College Transfer 

Students 72 

28 Frequency Distribution of "Other" 
Academic Problems Encountered by 

Transfer Students 74 

29 Frequency Distribution and Rank Order 
of Responses to Procedural Problems 
Encountered by One-College Transfer 

Students 75 

30 Frequency Distribution and Rank Order 
of Responses to Procedural Problems 
Encountered by Multi-College Transfer 

Students 76 

31 Frequency Distribution of "Other" 
Procedural Problems Encountered by 

Transfer Students 77 

32 Frequency Distribution and Rank Order 
of Responses to Extracurricular 
Problems Encountered by One-College 

Transfer Students 79 

33 Frequency Distribution and Rank Order 
of Responses to Extracurricular 
Problems Encountered by Multi-College 

Transfer Students 80 

34 Frequency Distribution of "Other" 
Extracurricular Problems Encountered 

by Transfer Students 81 



VI 



LIST OF TABLES - Continued 



Table Page 

35 Summary o£ Responses to Open- 
ended Question 82 

36 List of Major Problems Identified 
by One-College and Multi-College 

Transfer Students by Type of Problem 84 

37 List of Student and Institutional 
Characteristics Associated With 

Identified Major Problems of Transfer 85 



Vll 



Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate 
Council of the University of Florida in Partial 
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the 
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 



A STUDY OF PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED BY STUDENTS 
TRANSFERRING FROM BACCALAUREATE DEGREE-GRANTING 
INSTITUTIONS WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR THE 
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 

by 

Carl M. Hite 

August, 1975 

Chairman: James L. Wattenbarger 

Major Department: Educational Administration (Higher Education) 

The focus of this study centered on the characteristics 
of, and problems encountered by, students transferring from 
baccalaureate degree-granting institutions to the University 
of Florida, the characteristics of the institutions from which 
they transferred, the reasons they transferred, and the impli- 
cations this study has for adjustment theories as summarized 
by Arkoff, 

From an analysis of the data, collected by questionnaire, 
the findings which follow were derived. 

1. There were two distinct classifications of four-year 
transfer students: the one-college transfer student who 
attends only one four-year college before transferring; and the 



Vlll 



multi-college transfer student who attends two or more 
colleges before transferring, at least one must be a four- 
year college. 

2. The students who transferred to the University of 
Florida from other Florida state universities encountered no 
major problems. 

3. Students in both groups were more likely to be male; 
Caucasian; single; relatively young; Florida residents; living 
off-campus; non-veterans; enrolled in the University College 
or College of Arts and Sciences; fairly high achievers based 
on previous grade point average; diversified in selection of 
major at the University; sophomores or juniors; enrolled full- 
time; from families with incomes over $15,000; and were not 
likely to apply for financial aid. 

4. One-college transfer students were more likely to 
come from a college smaller than the University of Florida. 
Half came from state-controlled colleges and the remaining 
students were divided equally between private and religiously- 
affiliated colleges. They came from coed colleges and uni- 
versities located mainly east of the Mississippi River and 
south of the Mason-Dixon Line. 

5. The major reasons for leaving the college of 
previous attendance were that the academic programs in which 
they were enrolled were inadequate or the programs they de- 
sired were non-existent. 



IX 



6. The major reasons for transferring to the University 
were that the University possessed a strong program in the 
intended major and the general impression of the campus was 
favorable. 

7. The greatest number of problems identified were 
procedural, followed by academic and extracurricular. 

8. The major academic problem identified was "Academic 
advising was inadequate." The major procedural problems con- 
cerned the inadequacy of orientation, registration, and the 
"academic bureaucracy." 

9. In the area of extracurricular problems, the multi- 
college transfer students encountered more difficulty than 
one-college transfer students. 

10. The size of the University complicated adjustment, 
particularly for the students who transferred from smaller 
colleges and universities. 

11. In light of the three theories of adjustment as 
summarized by Arkoff, and in view of the findings of this 
study, adjustment to a new situation rests with both the 
individual and the environment. 

Based upon the findings of this study, the researcher 
believes the following implications are warranted for the 
University of Florida. 

1. There is no need, at this time, for a formal 
articulation agreement between the universities in the State 
University System in Florida. 



2. Based on their characteristics, the transfer students 
have little need to use the following services at the Uni- 
versity: veteran affairs, student financial aid, student 
services for international students, or minority affairs. 

3. Services, however, which may need to investigate 
further their procedures to insure meeting the needs of these 
transfer students are: orientation, academic counseling, 
registration, on and off-campus housing, and the handling of 
mailed communications by the Registrar, the Admission Office, 
the Housing Office, and the Office of Student Development. 

4. A definite need exists for more adequate academic 
counseling . 

5. The University needs to provide services flexible 
enough, both in kind and degree, to meet the special adjust- 
ment needs of each transferring student, wherever feasible. 



XI 



CHAPTER I 
INTRODUCTION 

Although many educators believe the term transfer student 
refers only to students from two-year colleges, each year an 
increasing number of students transfer from one four-year 
college to another. Van Alstyne (1974) reported that "In 
recent years, one out of every four entering full-time fresh- 
men has eventually transferred . . ." (p. 128). Willingham 
(1974) estimated that transfers number 600,000 annually (p. 39), 
Kintzer (1974a) estimated the figure only slightly lower-- 
"According to statistical information recently released by the 
Chronicle of Higher Education , about 500,000 students are 
switching college annually" (p. 78). According to Trivett 
(1974), in the State of Alabama, some 11,105 students trans- 
ferred among institutions of higher education in the fall and 
summer of 1972 (p. 2). 

During the academic year 1967-68, there were 357,000 
undergraduates enrolled for credit in institutions of higher 
education in the State of Illinois. Of these, approximately 
32,000 were identified as transfer students. The Data Book 
on Illinois Higher Education of 1974 indicated that in follow- 
up studies since 1971 "The number of transfer students reported 
showed an increase indicating that the total number of transfer 
students has increased since 1971" (p. 133). Wise and 



Gunnere (1962), in their study of college transfer students 
said, "The amount of transfer may simply reflect the general 
mobility of American society" (p. 233). It is obvious that 
many students are transferring and the directions taken are 
many also. 

Willingham (1974) identified seven different types of 
transfer students. They were: 

1. The Articulated Vertical Transfer- -students 
who transfer from a two-year college to a four- 
year college or university. This represents 
the largest group of transfers. 

2. Traditional Horizontal Transfer- -students who 
transfer from one four-year college to another 
four-year college. At one time, this form of 
transfer accounted for essentially all move- 
ment of undergraduate students among institutions, 
It still represents one-fourth of the total. 

3. Non-traditional Transfer- -students who transfer 
from innovative programs to other colleges and 
people who have been out of college for a long 
time . 

4. Reverse Transfer- - students who transfer from 

a four-year college back to a two-year college. 

5. Open-Door Transfer- -students who transfer from 
a two-year college to another two-year college. 

6. Double Reverse Transfer- -students who transfer 
from a four-year college to a two-year college 
and then once again to a four-year college. 

7. Vocational Transfer- -students who transfer from 
some type of vocational school or program to a 
four-year college. (pp. 39-46) 

With the diversity of types of students transferring, 

a variety of problems encountered by each of these types of 

transfer students is to be expected. Some of the problems 

will be the same; however, some of the problems will be 



different because of the nature of these respective groups. 

As Burke mentioned in his study of transfer students at the 

University of Connecticut: 

Also, and equally important, do all groups making 
the transition to our main campus have a similar 
experience? It should be pointed out that the three 
groups defined- -COMCOLS, TRANSFERS, and BRANCHFERS-- 
are dissimilar in some ways which may alter their 
ability to handle transfer, (1973, p. 73) 

Barger (1968) , in a study of transfer students at the 

University of Florida, stated the following concerning the 

transfer experience: 

Experiences of discontinuity which often 
accompany transition from one setting to another, 
from one role to another, or from one institution 
to another, can produce either growth-producing 
challenge or threatening frustration and failure, 
depending how adequately one is able to cope with 
the demands of the new situation. (p. 1) 

In addition to the problems associated with transfer, the 

transfer student will also have many of the same problems as 

native students. Anstett (1973), in a study of transfer 

students and their perceptions of the campus environment stated 

Many who transfer from one institution to 
another institution encounter numerous problems 
ranging from locating living accommodations to 
bargaining for maximum transfer credit. Solving 
these problems while attempting to compete for 
grades with native students completely familiar 
with the academic community imposes great emo- 
tional stress on the newly admitted transfer 
students. Of greater significance, however, is 
the realization that the transfer student must 
solve these problems within an environment which 
is perceived by him as being relatively unfriendly 
and inconsiderate. (p. 202) 



It is therefore evident that transfer students face 
three kinds of problems; one being those problems which all 
students, both native and transfer, encounter in pursuing 
an education. In addition, transfer students encounter 
problems peculiar to transfer students and problems peculiar 
to each type of transfer student. Institutions of higher edu- 
cation have attempted to meet the needs of some of these groups 
by conducting research to determine some of their problems. 
In recent years (1960s), the research has concentrated on the 
two-year college transfer student and the reverse transfer 
student CMeskill and Sheffield, 1971). At one time, most of 
the research concerning transfer students dealt with the tradi- 
tional horizontal student as he or she was the only kind of 
transfer student in higher education. Within the last decade, 
little has been done concerning this particular group of 
transfer students. Yet, they represent a very large percentage 
of the total number of transfer students in America's colleges 
and universities. For example, according to the University 
of Florida Registrar, 1,014 students transferred to the Uni- 
versity of Florida from other four-year colleges and universities 
in the Fall of 1974. This represented approximately one-third 
of the total number of transfer students to the University. 
Yet little research has been focused upon this group of trans- 
fer students. The University of Florida, as many other insti- 
tutions of higher learning in the United States, has studied 
the problems encountered by the two-year college transfer 



student but not the four-year college transfer student 
(Sandeen and Goodale, 1974). 

This study is focused upon the students who transferred 
to the University of Florida from other four-year colleges 
and universities: why they transferred, the problems that 
they encountered, and the implications of these problems for 
the University of Florida. 

The Problem 
Statement of Problem 

The focus of this study was on the characteristics and 
problems of students from four-year institutions who transfer 
to the University of Florida and on the characteristics of 
the institutions from which they transfer. Specifically, for 
a random sample of transfers from four-year institutions who 
entered the University of Florida, in the fall quarter of 1974, 
answers to the following questions were sought: 
1. What are the student characteristics (sex, race, 

marital status, age, residency, living arrangement, 
veteran status, academic major at the University of 
Florida, college enrolled in Fall 1974, approximate 
grade point average at previous institution, financial 
aid for first quarter at the University of Florida, 
educational goals, student classification, student 
status, and estimated parents' annual income) of 
those who transferred to the University of Florida 
in the fall of 1974 from other four-year colleges 
and universities? 



2. What are the characteristics (size, type of control, 
state, and type of student body) of the institutions 
from which these students transferred? 

3. What were the apparent reasons (as perceived by the 
transfer student) for transferring? 

4. Why did they select the University of Florida to 
complete their baccalaureate degree? 

5. What problems (academic, procedural, and extra- 
curricular) did these students encounter in trans- 
ferring to the University of Florida before and 
after matriculation? 

6. Do the findings of this study support or refute 
theories dealing with adjustment in new situations 
as summarized by Arkoff? 

Justification For The Study 

According to Willingham (1974) the number of students 
transferring nation-wide from one four-year college to another 
represented approximately one fourth of 600,000 or 150,000 
students. At the University of Florida, approximately 1,014 
four-year college transfer students entered the Fall of 1974. 
This number represented approximately one-third of the total 
number of undergraduate transfer students. Yet, little is 
known about them. Kintzer (1974a) reached the same conclusions 
nationwide- -"Little is known about a rapidly growing group, the 
intercollegiate-interuniversity transfers. . ." (p. 81-82). 
Following is a list of reasons why this study of students who 
transferred to the University of Florida was undertaken: 



1. To identify the problems encountered by the four-year 
college transfer student at the University of Florida. 
This will, in turn, provide administrators and faculty 
with information which may be used in formulating 
policy and in attempting to meet the needs of this 
group of students. 

As Barger (1968) concluded: 

The more clearly university faculty and ad- 
ministration understand the experiences and con- 
cerns of transferring students, the more adequately 
they can assist in making the transition construc- 
tive and meaningful. (p. 2) 

2. To identify the literature, even though sparse, dealing 
with the four-year college transfer students. Very 
little has been done recently in the area of study 
dealing solely with the four-year college transfer 
student. The review of literature contained in this 
proposal shows that most of the studies dealing with 
four-year college transfer students is dated. In 
addition, most of the studies of transfer students 
that have been done deal with either two-year college 
transfer students exclusively or two-year college 
transfer students being compared with native students 
and/or other kinds of transfer students. 

3. To identify the reasons why students transfer to the 
University of Florida from other four-year colleges 
and universities. By identifying these reasons, the 
University of Florida can attempt to meet the 



intellectual and extracurricular expectations of 
these transfer students. 

Delimitations and Limitations 

The following' delimitations and limitations were 
applied to this study: 

1. The study was limited to a random sample of estimated 
n of approximately 213 students from the total target 
population (1,014) of students who transferred to the 
University of Florida for the fall quarter, 1974. 

2. The results of this study, limited to the University 
of Florida, (will be) general izeable to similar land- 
grant public universities of comparable size. 

3. The questionnaire was administered during winter 
quarter 1975. This researcher recognized two weak- 
nesses in relation to the time of administration of 
the questionnaire. First, that students sampled may 
have forgotten some of the problems encountered in 
transferring to the University of Florida, and secondly, 
that the transfer students have not been here long 
enough to identify some of the problems. 

4. Certain preconceived expectations on the part of the 
researcher as to the type of problems encountered by 
transfer students might bias to some degree the re- 
sults of this study. 



Definition of Terms 

Articulation agreement - - is an agreement between a two- 
year college and the institution of higher education to which 
its students might transfer to complete their degree. The 
agreement may be established by statewide formal agreements, 
by a state agency or an institutional system, on a voluntary 
basis among groups of institutions. The purpose of the agree- 
ment is to facilitate the movement of the student from one 
level of education to another level. 

Characteristics of institutions of higher education - - 
will include size (number of students enrolled) , type of 
control (state, federal, private, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, 
Methodist, Baptist, Disciples of Christ, and other), state 
located in, and type of student body (coed, male, female). 

Characteristics of transfer students - -will include sex, 
race, marital status, age, residency, living arrangement, 
veteran status, academic major at the University of Florida, 
college enrolled in Fall 1974, approximate grade point average 
at previous institution, financial aid for first quarter at 
the University of Florida, educational goals, student classi- 
fication, student status, and parent's estimated annual income. 

Four-year college or university transfer student --is a 
student whose attendance previous to the University of Florida 
was at another four-year college or university, either public 
or private, either in or out of the State of Florida. 

Multi-college transfer student --is a student who attended 
two or more colleges before attending the University of 



10 



Florida. At least one o£ the previous colleges was a four- 
year college or university. 

Native student --is a student whose formal education 
beyond high school has been exclusively at the University of 
Florida . 

One-college transfer student --is a student who attended 
only one four-year college or university before attending the 
University of Florida. 

Problems encountered by transfer students - - include those 
areas and programs which increase the difficulty of a student 
in pursuing his educational goals. In this study, problems 
will be divided into three types: Academic (those which 
affect performance in the classroom and assignments outside 
the classroom) , Procedural (those which include the admission 
process, registration, evaluation of credit, and the sending 
and processing of forms by various offices within the University), 
and Extracurricular (those which are associated with education 
outside the conventional classroom setting). 

Quarter system --is in use at the University of Florida. 
In a twelve-month year, there are four quarters running from 
September through August, averaging 10 weeks of class in- 
struction each. Quarters begin in September (fall) , January 
(winter) , March (spring) , and June (summer) . 

Student classification - - refers to one of five types of 
classification given to undergraduate students at the Uni- 
versity of Florida. A freshman is a student with less than 



11 



45 quarter hours of credit. A sophomore is a student who has 
earned more than 45 quarter hours but less than 90 hours. A 
junior is a student who has earned 90 quarter hours or more, 
but less than 135 hours. A senior is a student who has earned 
135 hours or more. A five-year student is a candidate for a 
degree in a program which normally takes 15 quarters and has 
earned 180 hours or more. 

Student status --is determined by the number of hours 
for which a student enrolls at the University of Florida. A 
full-time student carries 12 hours or more. A part-time 
student carries 11 hours or less. 

Two-year college transfer student --is a student who 
transferred to the University of Florida from a public or 
private junior or community college, either in or out of the 
State of Florida. 

University of Florida --is a combined state university 
and land-grant college and offers instruction from the fresh- 
man through the advanced graduate level in 17 colleges and 
schools. 

Sources Of The Data and Procedures Used 

This section describes the sources of data and the pro- 
cedures utilized in this study. First, there is a descrip- 
tion of the sample and its selection. Second, the data 
gathering instrument that was used in this study is described. 
Third, the procedures that were used in collecting the data are 
detailed. Fourth, the techniques used to treat the data in 
relation to the questions which give direction to this study 
are enumerated. 



12 



Sample 

The target population included all students who trans- 
ferred to the University of Florida from a four-year college 
or university in the fall of 1974. This list was obtained 
from the University of Florida Registrar. By use of random 
numbers, a sample was selected. The size of the sample was 
based upon a formula developed by Hauskin (1973, p. 3), 
The formula is as follows: 

[X^ N 4 (1-S)] 



"" " 2 2 

[d^ (N-1) + X^ i> (1-$)] 

where n = required sample size 

2 
X = table value of chi square for one degree of 

freedom and the desired confidence interval 
(the researcher chose 90 percent as the 
confidence level) . 
N = population size (1,014) 
4 = the population proportion it is desired to 

estimate ( . 5) 
d = the degree of accuracy expressed as a proportion 
(.05) 
Instrumentation 

The instrument used to collect the data was a question- 
naire developed by the researcher. It was based upon student 
characteristics and problems associated with transfer as 
identified by the researcher in the review of literature. A 



13 



copy of this questionnaire will be found in Appendix A of this 
study. Items in the questionnaire provided data in the 
following areas: 

1. Student Data--sex, race, marital status, age, 
payment of fees, living arrangement, veteran status, 
academic major at the University of Florida, college 
enrolled in fall 1974, approximate grade point 
average at previous institution, financial aid for 
first quarter at the University of Florida, college 
or colleges previously attended, educational goals, 
student classification fall 1974, student status 
fall 1974, and parent's estimated annual income. 

2. Reasons for Transfer- -both reasons for leaving the 
previous institution of attendance and reasons for 
attending the University of Florida were included. 

3. Problems- -from three areas were included: academic, 
procedural, and extracurricular. 

In the process of developing the instrument, a pilot 
study of the questionnaire was administered to 25 students 
selected from the target population to answer, analyze, 
criticize the construction and design of the questionnaire. 
Data Collection Procedures 

Data were collected during the winter quarter, 1975. 
The previously described questionnaire was the primary data- 
gathering technique. In addition, the Yearbook of Higher 
Education (1973) provided statistical information about the 



14 



colleges previously attended by students in the sample. The 
institutional characteristics identified by use of the Year ^ 
book of Higher Education included: control, make-up of student 
body, state located, and enrollment. 

The exact steps taken in gathering the data were as 
follows : 

1. A review of the literature was made to determine what 
related studies have been conducted which dealt with 
students who transfer from one four-year college to 
another four-year college. 

2. A request was made by the researcher to the Dean of 
Admissions and Records, University of Florida, to supply 
the researcher with a list of names of all students who 
transferred to the University of Florida from four- 
year colleges and universities in the fall quarter of 
1974. 

3. By use of random numbers and the formula developed by 
Hauskin, the researcher arrived at a sample size of 213. 

4. A questionnaire was developed by the researcher based 
upon certain characteristics of transfer students and 
the problems those students encounter in transferring 
as identified by this researcher in the review of 
literature. 

5. A pilot study of this questionnaire was administered 
to a randomly selected sample of 25 students taken 
from the target population. 



15 



6. The questionnaire was revised based upon comments 
received from the students involved in the pilot study 
and from the researcher's committee. 

7. The questionnaire, a letter of introduction and ex- 
planation, and a postage-free envelope were mailed to 
the students selected in the random sample. A copy 
of the letter of introduction and explanation can be 
found in Appendix B. 

8. Postcard reminders were sent as necessary within 15 
days of initial mailing. A copy of the postcard can 
be found in Appendix C . Another postcard reminder 
was sent to those students who still had not returned 
their questionnaire thirty days after mailing. A copy 
of the postcard reminder can be found in Appendix D. 

9. _ The researcher telephoned or made door-to-door visits 

to collect the remaining questionnaires. 

10. Those questionnaires received by the researcher which 
were incomplete or incorrectly filled out were set 
aside. The researcher then made contact with those 
students who had filled out these questionnaires in 
order to insure the collect completion of each ques- 
tionnaire. 

11. After 60 days from initial mailing of the questionnaires, 
the researcher obtained the permanent addresses of 
those remaining students who had no local telephone 
number, had left no forwarding address, and had not re- 
turned their questionnaires. The researcher then sent 



16 



a second copy of the questionnaire to their per- 
manent home address. 

12. Upon return of the completed questionnaires, the re- 
searcher contacted by phone and/or personal visit 
those students who had requested on their question- 
naires that contact be made. 

13. Upon return of the questionnaires, the data obtained 
from the questionnaires and from the Yearbook of 
Higher Education were tabulated, analyzed, and reported 
in descriptive form. A card sorter was used in tabu- 
lating much of the data. 

Data Treatment 

In relation to the questions set forth in the statement 
of the problem, the following steps were taken in treating 
the data: 

1. Frequency distributions were developed, where necessary, 
in order to identify the characteristics of the 
students who transfer to the University of Florida 

from other four-year colleges and universities. 
(Questions 1 through 15 on the questionnaire supplied 
the appropriate data.) 

2. Frequency distributions were developed in order to 
identify the characteristics of the institutions from 
which students transfer. (The answers to item 11 on 
the questionnaire identified the colleges previously 
attended and the Yearbook of Higher Education was used 
to identify the characteristics of the college.) 



17 



3. Frequency distributions were developed in order to 
identify reasons why students left institutions pre- 
viously attended and why they transferred to the 
University of Florida. (Items 16 and 17 on the 
questionnaire supplied these.) 

4. Frequency distributions were developed in order to 
identify problems transfer students encountered as 
transfer students at the University of Florida. 
(Items 18-21 supplied these.) 

5. In addition, various related descriptive statistics 
were employed. Some of the frequency distributions 
are both in terms of number and percent. 

6. The researcher attempted, where possible, to identify 
relationships among the characteristics of the students, 
the institutions from which they came, and the major 
problems they encountered in transferring to the 
University of Florida. 

7. Based upon the findings of step 6, the researcher 
attempted to identify the implications such findings 
have for the academic, procedural, and extracurricular 
activities involving transfer students at the University 
of Florida. 

8. Based also upon the findings of step 6, and in light of 
theories dealing with adjustment in new situations as 
identified in the review of literature, this researcher 
assessed whether or not the findings of this study 
supported or refuted the selected theories of adjustment 



CHAPTER II 
REVIEW OF LITERATURE 

At one time, the majority o£ college transfer students 
in the United States transferred from one four-year college 
to another four-year college (Willingham, 1974). This is 
no longer the case. The largest number of transfers presently 
move vertically from two-year colleges to four-year colleges 
and universities. A review of literature by Meskill and 
Sheffield of "Research on Transfer Students" turned up articles 
exclusively dealing with two-year college transfers (1971) . 
Yet according to Willingham, one-fourth of the transfers in 
the United States transfer between one four-year institution 
and another four-year institution. The literature and re- 
search do not reflect this figure. Because of the paucity of 
research dealing exclusively with the four-year college transfer 
student, this researcher included studies of two-year college 
transfer students which are applicable to this review. 

The review of literature is divided into four major 
parts. The first part deals with theories that apply to ad- 
justment of an individual in a new situation. Theories re- 
lating to what happens when an individual encounters a new 
situation are useful in understanding the transfer student and 
his problems. The second part of this review concentrates on 



18 



19 



the characteristics of four-year college transfer students 
and the institutions from which they transfer. The third 
part identifies some of the reasons given for transferring 
from one institution to another institution. The fourth 
part of the review covers problems encountered by students 
who transfer. In addition, each part will contain theory 
where applicable. 
Adjustment Theories 

A period of transition can be one which is rewarding 
or it can be disasterous and the beginning of many failures. 
Barger (1968) takes a positive view of the transition ex- 
perience of the transfer student stating that "Periods of 
transition provide special opportunities for the enhancement 
of growth and for the prevention of failure experiences" (p. 1) 

Theory dealing specifically with transfer students and 
the transition experience does not exist. Therefore, this 
researcher has looked at research dealing with adjustment of 
an individual in a new situation. Even though the four-year 
college transfer student has previously attended college, he 
will still have to make adjustments and will encounter diffi- 
culties in the new institution. 

Arkoff (1968) identified three major theories dealing 
with adjustment of an individual to a new situation. Three 
definitions are useful in understanding these theories. 

1, Adjustment--a person's interaction with his 
environment . 



20 



I HiLviramneat- -everything external to the person 
with which he is in some relation. 

3. Interaction- -mutual bearing or influence. (p. 4) 

The first theory identified hj Arkoff places the major 

burden q£ adjustments on the individual and is the predominant 

view held by psychologists today (p. 6). Barger (1968) also 

believes the emphasis on adjustment rests with the student in 

ftrxirgxng ahaut a successful transition to the new college or 

university. 

Over the years it has became increasingly 
apparent that the more adequately students are 
prepared to undertake the demands of university- 
life and the mare realistic are their expectations 
of these demands and themselves, the more con- 
structive and growth-producing does the trans- 
itional experience became. (p. 1-Z) 

The second theory identified by Arkoff emphasises the 
environment. Each college has a different environment, and 
haw the student perceives this environment will determine 
wihether the transition experience is rewarding or defeating. 
According to CXark (1563] , the nature of the challenge en- 
countered by college students "varies according to institutional 
characteristics a€ different college environments" Cp* 332). 

The third theory, endorsed by Arkoff, considers adjust- 

men-t "twa-way^' (p, 7} . Both the student and the environment 

play a part- 

Haw easily a student adjusts to college 
depends in part on the needs of the student and 
the extent to which the college facilitates 
satisfaction of those needs and also on the de- 
mands of the college and the extent to which the 
student can meet these demands. (p. 396) 



21 



Characteristics of Four-Year College Transfer Students and 
Institutions 

One of the early pioneers in the study of transfer 

students was Eaton at the University of Indiana. He did 

studies of both students who transferred from Indiana 

University (1941) and those who transferred to Indiana 

University (1943) . His first study of students transferring 

from Indiana University reached the following conclusions: 

1. Many students change schools rather than 
curricula within a school when they have 
failed a certain course. 

2. A number of students change schools in 
order to get a type of training that is 
not offered by the school in which they 
are enrolled. 

3. There is need for greater student guidance 
in colleges and universities. (p. 7) 

His second study (1943) concentrated on those students 
who transferred to Indiana University during the years 
1939-1940, 1940-1941, 1941-1942 and was limited to under- 
graduate students enrolling in the schools of Arts and 
Sciences, Business, Education and Music. Eaton identified 
the institutions from which these students transferred by 
the name of institution, the state in which it was located, 
the type of control, the type of student, and the number of 
transfer students received from that school during each of 
the three years included in the study. An examination of 
the data showed that most of the students came from within 
the state of Indiana and from two major universities- - 
Purdue and Butler University. 



22 



Of larger scope and magnitude was a study conducted 
by Iffert (1958) for the United States Office of Education. 
This study dealt with those students transferring to in- 
stitutions in the time period from Spring of 1951 to the 
Fall of 1953. The results showed that most students trans- 
ferred after their second year (28.21, followed by 21.3% 
their first year, 19.1°6 their third year, and 0.1"o after 
their fourth year) (p. 81). 

Another trend identified by Iffert was that, for the 
most part, students who originally attended a large school 
transferred to a small school and those who attended a small 
school transferred to a large one. 

A study conducted by Wise (1958) of transfer students 
indicated proportionally, "There are data which suggest 
that more men than women transfer to another college after 
discontinuing registration at their college of first enroll- 
ment" (p. 16) . 

Holmes (1971) conducted a ten-year study of 1,557 
four-year institution transfer students to the College of 
Liberal Arts at Syracuse University: 1945-1955. The four- 
year transfer student group was comprised of two-thirds men 
and one-third women. "Fifty-six percent of the groups call 
New York their home state" (p. 323). Another 17% came from 
neighboring states. His study, for purposes of comparison, 



23 



arranged the four-year colleges and universities from which 
students transferred by size of enrollment as follows: 1) 
under 2,500; 2) 2,500 to 5,000; 3) 5,000 to 7,000; 4) 7,500 
to 10,000; and 5) over 10,000. It was interesting that 
groups 1 and 5, the smallest and the largest institutions 
contributed two-thirds of the total number of four-year 
transfer students.. 

A more recent study by Rose and Elton (1970) compared 
the "personality factor scores of students at the time of 
transfer from two-year colleges with those of students at 
time of transfer between four-year institutions" (p. 266). 
The study was conducted at the University of Kentucky and 
used the Omnibus Personality Inventory, Form C. The sample 
included 97 female four-year college transfers, 173 male 
junior college transfers, 255 female four-year college trans- 
fers, and 203 male four-year college transfers. The results 
showed that the transfer students personality characteristics 
were very similar regardless of the first institution of en- 
rollment . 

The Illinois Council on Articulation conducted a massive 
study of transfer students in the State of Illinois in 1971 
("Transfer Students in Illinois," 1971). One purpose of 
the study was to determine, for each participating insti- 
tution, the magnitude of its transfer population, both re- 
ceived and sent. The study included all transfer students 
coming to Illinois from out of state institutions for 
a period of one year and all transfer students in higher 



24 



education institutions in Illinois. Each institution, as a 
part of the study, was to complete a questionnaire dealing 
predominantly with student characteristics on every transfer 
student, including the institution from which he or she trans- 
ferred. The data showed that, "approximately one of every ten 
undergraduate students of higher education in the State of 
Illinois enrolling that year for the first time at that insti- 
tution for credit was a transfer student" (p. 296). In addition, 
"Almost twice as many transfer students are transferring from 
senior institutions (60 percent) as from junior colleges 
(34 percent)" (p. 297). Also, "Private institutions in Illinois 
are sending more transfer students than they are receiving" 

(p. 297). 

The data clearly indicated that transfer 
students from public' four-year colleges are 
much more likely to be students who were dropped 
before leaving the institution than are students 
transferring from private four-year colleges, 
private or public two-year colleges, or pro- 
fessional-technical schools. (p. 301) 

A more recent study dealing with four-year college 
transfer students was conducted at Memphis State University 
in Tennessee by Preus (1973). With the assistance of the 
University record office, a list of all (926) students who 
transferred to Memphis State University in the Fall Term, 
1972, was prepared. A random sample comprising 126 students, 
13.6°^ of the population, was selected as subjects for indi- 
vidual interview. Of these 126 transfer students studied, 60 
transferred from four-year public colleges and 28 from four- 



25 



year private colleges. The study found that most of the 

students were single (87 single, 39 married). Most of the 

transferring was done at the beginning of their sophomore 

(41 students) or junior (42 students) years. Roughly half of 

the transfer students were female and half were male. 

Burke's study at the University of Connecticut (1973) 

dealt in part with transfers from four-year colleges. The 

study showed that these transfers, compared to the other 

transfers studied (two-year college and branch transfers) , 

had the greatest percentage of married students and was the 

only group more than one-half female. 

The most recent study identified by this researcher 

was a study carried out by Rahaim (1974). In part, the 
purpose of her dissertation was to develop a profile of the 
transfer student based on demographic data collected from 
transfer students who enrolled in 13 public and 25 private 
four-year educational institutions in Massachusetts in the 
Fall of 1972. According to Rahaim, the typical transfer 
student was under 24 years of age, single, slightly more 
likely to be a male, a Massachusetts resident, and at least 
in the public sector, a non-veteran who attended college 
immediately after high school. In addition she found that 
these students, for the most part, were academically qualified 
and did not ask for financial aid. 

From the studies that have been completed concerning 
four-year college transfer students and their general character' 
istics, the following can be summarized: 



26 



1. Most of the transfer students remain within the state. 

2. Most transfer students transfer at the beginning of 
their sophomore or junior years. 

3. The number of these four-year transfer students is 
large (one fourth of the total number who transfer 
yearly) . 

4. Students tend to move from large to small schools or 
from small to large schools. 

No definite conclusions could be drawn about sex or marital 
status of the transfer student. 

This researcher's study attempts to update and at the 
same time expand the scope of characteristics identified in 
this review. The researcher does not limit his study to 
certain schools or majors as did Eaton (1943). Also included 
are the following characteristics which were not previously 
identified in any of the studies - -race , living arrangement, 
veteran status, financial aid, and parents' estimated annual 
income . 
Reasons For Transferring 

This section is divided into two parts: reasons given 
by students for leaving an institution and reasons given for 
transferring to another institution. The review of literature 
showed that most of the studies dealing with transfer students 
identified reasons why students leave an institution rather 
than why students decide to transfer to another institution. 
Also, many of the studies concentrated on those students who 
drop out rather than those who continue at another institution, 



27 



Why students leave . As mentioned earlier by this re- 
searcher, Eaton (1941) investigated reasons why students 
leave college. 

The purpose of this study was to ascertain 
whether the reasons students transfer to some 
other school lies within the student and is 
purely personal or whether the transfer is due 
to an inefficiency or lack in the University 
itself. (p. 5) 

One conclusion of the study was that most students change 
school rather than change curricula within a school when they 
have failed a certain course. In Eaton's review of related 
studies, the most common reasons discovered for leaving a 
college or university were poor scholarship, finance, health, 
home conditions, lack of intelligence, poor high school found- 
ation, lack of application to subject matter, lack of oppor- 
tunity to pursue the work desired, lack of sincere advice given 
by University counselors, roving dispositions, inability to 
adjust to academic and social environment of the college, lack 
of interest, a desire to improve their condition and education 
some place else. 

A recent study conducted by Meek at the University of 
Florida (1974) found that of those students who were inter- 
viewed and withdrew Winter Quarter 1974, the majority of the 
reasons given were financial, personal, and academic. Another 
recent study by the Joint Committee on College Transfer Students 
(1973) dealt with transfer students entering the University of 
North Carolina system in the fall of 1972 ( Guidelines for 
Transfers, 1972). 



28 



There are many reasons, but the prevalent 
one is the student's desire to advance his edu- 
cation. Another is the student's effort to 
accommodate himself better to academic standards, 
programs, cost, or geographic location. (p. 1) 

Why students transfer to other institutions . Reasons 
why students transfer to an institution are very similar to 
some of the reasons why students leave an institution. The 
Florida Board of Regents (1970, 1971) has conducted two sur- 
veys to find out why students transfer to public universities 
in Florida, The following reasons were identified: inexpensive, 
close to home, friends were to attend there, general academic 
reputation, strong program in intended major, financial aid 
opportunities, general impression of campus and students, 
opportunity for independent study, and "felt had better 
opportunity to succeed here." 

In attempting to explain why a student chooses a certain 
institution, Clark (1968) theorizes that a student chooses a 
college because of the public image the college portrays. 
The public image of a college, in part, is based upon what 
the college has been (its history) and its current status 
today. 

As can be seen from the studies focused on why students 
leave one institution and why they chose another, there are 
areas that overlap. What the first institution cannot do to 
meet the transfer student's needs, the second institution 
hopefully can. 



29 



Problems Encountered By Transfer Students 

Problems encountered by two-year college transfer 
students as well as four-year college transfer students will 
be reviewed as there should be some problem areas common to 
both. 

In part, many of the problems encountered by transfer 
students may be due to the expectations these students have 
before they arrive on campus. Buckley (1968), in his study 
of a comparison of freshman and transfer expectations of 
college theorized the following: 

According to these results, we cannot 
assume that transfer students, even with 
previous college experience, bring with them 
different expectations than freshmen. Both 
tend to exaggerate their expectations of the 
environment and anticipate a high intellectual 
and non-intellectual climate. (p. 188) 

Perception also affects the view a transfer student 
might have of a problem. Anstett (1973) conducted a study 
of student perceptions of the institutional environment. 
Anstett theorized that the institutional environment "is 
what it is perceived to be by the people who live in it. 
What people perceive to be true is true for them" (p. 198). 
It is obvious that some of the problems identified both in 
this review and by the findings of this study are due in part 
to students' expectations and in part by the perceptions they 
hold of their environment. 

Much of the literature about transfer students dealt 
with articulation. The purpose of an articulation agreement 



30 



is to facilitate the student's transition from freshman level 
in the community junior college to the university or college 
in the shortest time possible and minimum amount of incon- 
venience. According to Kintzer (1974b), 28 states have no 
discernible plan. Of the 22 who do, some plans are only in' 
the beginning stages of development (p. 2). It appears to 
the researcher that a need for an articulation agreement 
implies that there are problems to be overcome in moving from 
one level in a system to another or from one institution to 
another. Florida has an articulation Agreement between public 
community colleges and the universities in the State University 
System. But little attention has been given to any kind of 
agreement between four-year institutions. 

Burt (1972) identified particular areas of difficulty 
encountered by transfer students. According to Burt, college 
catalog information is usually vague concerning the junior 
college transfer student. Thirteen percent of the transfer 
students lose the equivalent of at least one semester of 
credit in the process of transferring. 

Willingham (1972) estimated that approximately one-half 
of the students who transfer lose some credit in the transfer 
process. In addition, he identified other problems encountered 
by transfer students: inadequate orientation, diverse ad- 

ission procedures, shortage of financial aid, space not avail- 
able for transfer students, and the lack of maintenance of 
curriculum articulation. 



m 



31 



According to Goodale and Sandeen (1971) , the junior 
college transfer student tended to be overlooked in the areas 
of orientation, counseling, participation in extracurricular 
activities, and academic advisement at the four-year insti- 
tution. 

# 

The areas identified by Goodale and Sandeen were based 

in part upon the major work dealing with transfer students 

done by Knoell and Medsker in 1965-- From Junior to Senior 

College: A National Study of the Transfer Student . In their 

final chapter, Knoell and Medsker stated: 

In many four-year institutions transfer 
students are being overlooked in planning 
orientation programs, in offering counseling 
services to new students, in inviting their 
participation in social and extracurricular 
activities, and, above all, in giving appro- 
priate academic advice at the time of their 
first registration. There was little or no 
evidence of discriminatory policies or practices 
affecting the junior college transfer students, 
but compared with the attention given the entering 
freshmen, there was a general lack of concern 
for their needs and interests. The new freshman 
continues to be the preferred client of the 
four-year institutions, and of their student 
services program, while the transfer student 
is usually left to make his own adjustment to 
the new situation. (p. 97) 

A study by the Washington State Council on Higher 
Education (1973) indicated the following: the transfer 
student has less of a chance at financial aid, was not re- 
cruited as much as freshmen, lost credit when transferring, 
was not properly oriented, was usually limited in number based 
upon a quota developed for entering freshmen, and had difficulty 
in finding living accommodations on campus if they preferred 
to live on campus ( Transfer of Credit , 1973). 



32 



Goodale and Sandeen (1971), in their study of the trans- 
fer student for the National Association of Student Personnel 
Administrators, identified many areas of concern for the 
transfer student. Two major areas of concern were articulation 
problems (little research done in this area, few states have 
articulation agreements, transfer student need for more per- 
sonal communication with prospective colleges) and social ad- 
justment problems (little research activity in this area; 
transfer students feel student activities, whether they be 
cultural, social, political, or recreational, are aimed at 
the entering freshman; transfer students feel less confident 
socially than native students; and have the feeling that native 
students tend to view transfers as "second-class citizens.") 
(p. 254) 

An example of a problem faced by transfer students was 
investigated by Warlick (1971) in the state of Virginia. 
Warlick did a study of admission policies and practices for 
transfer students in Virginia. The conclusion reached by 
Warlick was that the institutions of higher education in 
Virginia were using in practice a great number of regulations 
and requirements which were not found in any of their published 
materials. In addition, the institutions of higher education 
were not putting into practice what was contained in the publi- 
cations about transfer student admission. As a result, the 
potential transfer applicants were being considered for ad- 
mission on the basis of criteria which were unknown to the 
candidates . 



33 



A later study carried out by Sandeen (1974) identified 
the following general areas in which transfer students face 
problems: attitudes toward transfer students, new student 
programs, registration, academic advising, student financial 
aid, housing, student activities, career planning and place- 
ment, publications, adjustment to institutional change, 
articulation agreements, special academic opportunities, par- 
ticipation in institutional governance, recognition and awards. 

Sistrunk (1974) completed a study of problems encountered 
by students transferring to two and four-year senior institu- 
tions in Florida. His study of transfer students included 
both junior college transfers and four-year college transfers. 
He analyzed six universities in the State University System 
of Florida, including the University of Florida. Sistrunk 
identified 24 problems. The problems were: 

1. Insufficient familiarity of academic counselors with 
the content of community college associate in arts 
degree programs; 

2. Insufficient familiarity of community college 
counselors with the content of baccalaureate 
major programs at the state university; 

3. Acquisition of adequate academic counseling for 
the entering transfer student; 

4. The requirement of additional prerequisites for 
admission to some baccalaureate degree programs, 
thus delaying admission to the upper division 
institution, extending the enrollment required 
for graduation, or forcing the student to change 
the vocational objective; 

5. Insufficient articulation of course content between 
the community college and the university; 



34 



6. Frequent unavailability of appropriate academic 
counselors during the initial registration period; 

7. Impersonality of academic counseling sessions; 

8. Inability to complete prerequisite courses at the 
community college; 

9. Limitations upon enrollment of certain academic colleges; 

10. Breadth of available majors is not effectively 
communicated to prospective transfer students; 

11. Adjustment of moving from a small campus to a 
larger institution; 

12. Information on housing is not mailed to prospective 
transfer students upon tentative admission; 

13. Substantial delays in mailed communications with 
transfer students; 

14. Delay in the evaluation and acceptance of community 
college academic credits, particularly those courses 
taken as prerequisites for selected majors; 

15. No informational publications directed specifically 
at prospective transfer students; 

16. Reluctance of students to participate in student 
activities because of academic responsibilities; 

17. The academic expectations of the faculty at the uni- 
versity, when contrasted with the community college; 

18. Student activities are primarily geared toward the 
native student; 

19. Insufficient orientation to campus services; 

20. Insufficient orientation to available campus activities; 

21. Removal of transfer students from dormitory spaces 
so that freshmen may have these spaces; 

22. Loss of course content by use of credit by examination; 

23. Development of institutional loyalty among transfer 
students ; 

24. Participation in student activities by transfer 
students does not receive sufficient encouragement, 
(p. 117-119) 



35 



In addition, Sistrunk identified problems encountered 
by students at the University of Florida. Academic counseling 
was considered inadequate, particularly during initial regis- 
tration. Students considered the orientation insufficient in 
terms of describing the student services on campus. Sistrunk 
further noted that, while freshmen are automatically sent a 
packet of information concerning housing on-campus, a transfer 
student must request such information. 

Bearing (1974) identifies three major types of theories 

of student advisement and counseling. These theories, in 

part, may be related to problems encountered by transfer 

students . 

One is that every faculty member is by 
virtue of training and knowledge capable of, and 
by virtue of academic appointment responsible for, 
counseling, advising, and evaluating performance 
of students. A second is that faculty members 
differ widely in interest in and capacity for such 
functions, and that a professional cadre of full- 
time academic counselors should assume the respons- 
ibilities fully, relieving teaching faculty of 
significant involvement in the process of advis- 
ing, counseling, and even testing. A third view 
is that college students should be mature adults 
fully capable of reading and interpreting catalog 
statements, competent to design their own programs 
within limits specified by the published institu- 
tional regulations, and appropriately responsible 
for their own success or failure. (p. 70-71) 

It is obvious that transfer students and their problems 
will be affected by the particular view taken by the college 
and its personnel toward student advisement and counseling. 

Kintzer (1974a) identified certain problems which have 
been overlooked by most in the research of transfer students. 



36 



More specifically, he identified problems unique to the four- 
year transfer student. They were: 

1. If the various campuses in the same multi- 
university have different graduation re- 
quirements, must he complete a separate 
set of requirements to graduate from the 
second campus? 

2. Is he caught in the trap of residency 
requirements? 

3. Is it possible to take work simultaneously 
at more than one campus in the system? 

4. Will all courses taken in his major count 
at the other campuses? 

5. Will his financial aid grant transfer to 
the new campus along with his credits? 
(p. 82-83) 

An earlier publication by Kintzer (1973) identified 
other problems encountered by the student seeking to transfer. 
Most of the problems identified applied to two-year college 
transfer students. The sudden changes in the upper division 
curricula, the insistence of exact equivalence of courses, 
the refusal to accept occupational courses, the placement of 
limitations on the amount of credit in certain majors, the 
refusing to accept certain courses, and the limiting of enroll 
ment of transfer students in certain programs are some of the 
problems identified by Kintzer. He also identified problems 
which are not due to the institution, but associated with the 
student: the changing of majors when transferring; the fail- 
ing to complete prerequisites; and the compiling of a poor 
academic record. 



37 



Gatzke (1973) conducted a study of all junior year 
transfer students from institutions in the state of Missouri 
who entered the University of Missouri--Columbia during the 
1972-1973 fall and winter semesters. Two conclusions which 
relate to this study were that transfer students from two- 
year public institutions experienced a greater amount of 
transfer loss than did transfer students from four-year 
private institutions. Also, depending upon what college the 
transfer enrolled in at the University of Missouri- -Columbia , 
the amount of credit loss in transfer varied. 

An additional problem identified by Willingham and 
Findiykan (1969) concerned financial aid. According to the 
two researchers: 

In any event, the bare facts concerning 
aid to transfers constitute ample evidence that 
there is a real problem. Almost half the in- 
stitutions (146 four-year colleges and uni- 
versities made up their sample) reported that 
aid requests from transfer applicants exceeded 
the institution's resources. On the other 
hand fewer than one college in five had any 
aid set aside specifically for transfers, 
(p. 9) 

The two researchers identified other potential barriers 

to transfer students also. Even though transfer students 

from two and four-year colleges have approximately the same 

college grades, the junior college transfer student was less 

likely to be rejected than the four-year college students (24 

percent versus 35 percent). They further stated that: 

Comparative rejection rates indicate that there 
is a substantial bias in favor of state resi- 
dents, though previous college grades do not 
differentiate residents and non-residents. (p. 8) 



38 



Admission standards, timing practices, and lack of 
space were other areas identified as contributing to potential 
barriers encountered by transfer students. 

A comprehensive list of barriers encountered by trans- 
fer students is provided by Furniss and Martin (1974). They 
include : 

Lack of agreement on minimum grade point average; 

Lack of standardization of grading systems; 

Difficulty with pass/fail grading system; 

Lack of synchronized academic calendars; 

Lack of agreement on external degree standards; 

Lack of agreement on validity of credit for life 
experiences ; 

Lack of agreement on validity of correspondence courses; 

Lack of agreement on validity of adult education courses; 

Lack of problem-specific counseling; 

Lack of standardized admission standards; 

Lack of agreement on core curricula; 

Lack of understanding of course content and objectives; 

Lack of coordination between admissions office and 
departmental requirements; 

Associate in Arts not recognized; 

Lack of agreement on acceptability of CLEP and 
USAFI tests; 

Lack of agreement on external degree standards; 

Lack of agreement on credit by examination; 

Lack of recognition of educational experiences 
m the military; 



39 



Lack of recognition of educational experiences in 
penal institutions; 

Remedial and technical courses not transferable; 

Discrepancies in residency requirements; 

Lack of compliance with state legal requirements; 

Discrepancies in financial aid: transfer and 
native students; 

Refusal to accept "old" credits; 

Undefined provisions for waiver of requirements; 

Lack of agreement on credits from accredited and 
non-accredited colleges; 

Lack of provisions for transfer of credits from 
proprietary institutions (p. 25). 

In summary, it can be seen that the problems of trans- 
fers are many. The very process of transfer itself causes 
problems. The transfer student must cope with both problems 
resulting from transfer and problems which all students, 
native and transfer, encounter from day to day on any campus. 

According to a study done by Ritt at the University of 
Florida in 1970, if the problens identified by transfer students 
are not solved or adequately dealt with, the results can be 
most unfortunate both for the institution and for the student. 
He concluded: 

1. The greater the dissatisfaction that a student 
reports, the greater the anticipated prob- 
ability of his dropping out of the university, 

2. The greater the dissatisfaction with the 
academic aspects of the university, the 
greater the anticipated probability of 
dropping out for academic reasons. Simi- 
larly, students reporting greater dis- 
satisfaction with the non-academic aspects 
of the university, report a higher dropout 
potential for non-academic reasons. (p. 56) 



4Q 



This study deals exclusively with problems encountered 
by four-year college transfer students. As a review of the 
literature showed, previous studies concentrated on two-year 
college transfer students or combined different types of 
transfer students. This study updates the few studies that 
have been done dealing only with four-year college transfer 
students. (Eaton 1941, Iffert 1950, Conrad 1951 and Holmes 
19 1) 
Summary 

The four-year college transfer student is not new to 
higher education. Recent research, however, has concentrated 
primarily on two-year college transfer students and their 
transfer problems. 

Because of the paucity of recent research dealing with 
the four-year college transfer student, this study should be 
of assistance in identifying some of the characteristics of 
both the students who transfer from one four-year college to 
another, and the characteristics of the institutions from 
which they transfer. 

As discussed in the preceding review of literature, 
reasons for leaving and for transferring to an institution 
are in response to shortcomings of the previously attended 
institution. This study attempts to identify the reasons 
students leave one institution and transfer to the University 
of Florida. 

Some of the problems identified in the research are 
common to all college students, but are more accentuated for 



41 



the transfer student because of his unf amiliarity with his 
new environment. Other problems are peculiar to transfer 
students only and, of these, some are pertinent to certain 
types of transfer students. This study attempts to clarify 
those problems encountered by students who transfer from one 
four-year college to another. 
Format of Study 

Chapter I contains three major parts: the introduction, 
the problem, and the sources of data and procedures used. 
Chapter II reviews pertinent literature. This chapter identi- 
fies the characteristics of transfer students, primarily four- 
year but also two-year, and the institutions from which they 
transfer, reasons for transferring, and problems encountered 
by transfer students as described in previous studies. 
Chapter III is an analysis of the data, identifying the 
characteristics of students who transferred to the University 
of Florida, the characteristics of the institutions from which 
they transferred, the reasons for transferring, the problems 
encountered in transferring, and the identification of rela- 
tionships between characteristics and problems. Chapter IV 
discusses the findings in Chapter III in light of previous 
research identified in the review of literature. Chapter V 
presents a summary and the conclusions reached in this study. 
The last section of this chapter discusses the implications 
this study has for the University of Florida. Attention is 
also given to selected theories dealing with adjustment in 



42 



new situations and the relationships between the findings 
of this study and such theories. The final part of this 
chapter discusses implications for further research. 



CHAPTER III 
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 

The purpose of the present chapter is to present an 
analysis of the results obtained from the questionnaires 
mailed to a sample of four-year college transfer students vv'ho 
enrolled at the University of Florida, fall quarter 1974, 
The questionnaire was designed to elicit information regard- 
ing the following: student characteristics, institutional 
characteristics, reasons for transferring, and problems en- 
countered in transferring. The chapter is divided as follows: 

Questionnaire Return 

Characteristics of Four-year College Transfer Students 

Characteristics of Institutions Previously Attended 

Reasons for Transferring 

Problems Encountered in Transferring 

Responses to Open-ended Question 

Relationship of Characteristics with Major Problems 

Questionnaire Return 

The researcher sent 213 questionnaires to a randomly 
selected sample of students who transferred from other four- 
year colleges and who enrolled at the University of Florida 
during the fall quarter, 1974. A total of 204 of these 
questionnaires was returned representing 96 percent of. the 
sample. Because of the nature of the follow-up (discussed in 
Chapter I) conducted by this researcher, all 204 returned 
questionnaires were useable. Of the nine students who did not 



43 



44 



complete questionnaires, five registered for winter quarter, 
1975, but dropped out during the quarter without going through 
the formal withdrawal procedure of the University of Florida; 
three did not register winter quarter, 1975; and one withdrew 
fall quarter, 1974, None of the nine left forwarding addresses 
and questionnaires sent to their permanent home addresses were 
not returned. 

The researcher divided the completed questionnaires into 
two distinct groups- -those that had been filled out by students 
who had attended only one four-year college or university be- 
fore transferring to the University of Florida and those that 
had attended two or more colleges, at least one of which was a 
four-year college, before transferring to the University of 
Florida. The researcher will refer to the first group as one- 
college transfer students, of which there were 150. The 
second group will be referred to as multi-college transfer 
students of which there were 54. These represent respectively 
74 percent and 26 percent of the questionnaires returned. The 
multi-college transfer students can be further subdivided as 
follows : 

Attended two four-year colleges or universities 20 

Attended two colleges, one of which was a 

four-year college or university 22 

Attended three four-year colleges or universities 1 

Attended three colleges, at least one being a 
four-year college or university 9 

Attended a four-year college or university 

located in a foreign country 2 

TOTAL 54 



45 



Characteristics of Four-Year College Transfer Students 

This section deals with the responses to questions 1 
through 16 (excluding question 12) of the questionnaire. 
Questions concerning student characteristics were based upon 
previous studies of transfer students as identified m the 
review of literature as well as those characteristics which 
the researcher thought might relate to problems identified by 
transfer students. 

Sex . Table 1 provides a breakdown of transfer students 
by sex. In both the one-college transfer student and the 
multi-college transfer student groups, the number of males 
exceeded the number of females by approximately nine percent. 
Each group contained approximately the same percentage of males 
and thus, females. 

Table 1. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students 
By Sex 



Type 

Sex One-College Multi -College 

Male 82 (55%) 29 (54%) 

Pemale 68 (45% ) 25 (46% ) 

TOTAL 150 (100%) 54 (100%) 



Ra£e. Table 2 describes the racial composition of both 
groups of transfer students. In both groups, the overwhelming 
majority of students belong to the category identified as 
"other," (i.e., Caucasian). Less than five percent of both 
groups involve students commonly referred to as minority students 



46 



Table 2. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students 
By Race 



Type 

^^^^ One-College Multi-College 

American Indian 1 (2°o) 

Black 1 (1^,) 

Oriental 1 (i»^) 2 (41) 

Spanish Surname American 4 (31) 

Other 145 (95% ) 51 (94°0 

TOTAL 149 (1001) 54 (1001) 



xMarital Status . Table 3 presents a breakdown of both 
groups of transfer students by marital status. In this 
aspect, the two groups were different. The number and per- 
centage of married multi-college transfer students were 
greater than the number andpercentage of married one-college 
transfer students. But in both cases, the majority of transfer 
students were single. 

Table 3. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students 
By Marital Status 



Type 

Marital Status One-College Multi-ColTege" 

Single 142 (95%) 41 (76"^ 

f^arried 5 (3%) 13 (241) 

Divorced 1 (i«^) 

Widowed 1 (1%) 

Legally Separated 

TOTAL 149 (1001) 54 (100%) 



47 



Age . Table 4 presents information on both groups of 
transfer students by age. The majority of students in both 
groups were in the "20-23" age-group bracket. However, the next 
largest age group for multi-college transfer students was the 
"24-29" age-group bracket. Combining the age brackets of 
"under 20" and "20-23" for the one-college transfer students, 
it reveals that 98 percent of these transfer students are 23 
years old or less. Of the multi-college transfer students, 
only 79 percent are 23 or less. 

Table 4. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students 
By Age 



Ty£^ 

Age One-College Multi -College 

Under 20 56 (371) 4 (71) 

20-23 92 (61^) 39 {111) 

24-29 1 (1%) 9 (17%) 

30 or over 1 (II ) 2 (3°0 

TOTAL 150 (1001) 54 (100%) 

Payment of Fees . Table 5 describes the two groups of 
transfer students by the type of fee schedule they were re- 
quired to pay while attending the University of Florida, fall 
quarter, 1974. In both groups, the majority of students Mere 
considered Florida residents and paid in-state tuition charges. 
However, a greater percentage of multi-college transfer students 
(87 percent) than one-college transfer students (77 percent) 
were considered Florida residents. 



48 



Table 5. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students 
By Payment of Fees 



Type 



Payment of Fees One-College Multi -College 

Florida Resident 115 (77%) 47 (87%) 

Non-Florida Resident 35 (25%) 1 (15%) 

TOTAL 150 (100%) 54 (100%) 



Living Arrangement . Table 6 presents both groups of 
transfer students by type of living arrangement. In both 
groups, the majority of students were living off-campus, 
apart from their parents. However, a greater percentage of 
multi-college transfer students (80 percent) than one-college 
transfer students (65 percent) were living off-campus apart 
from their parents. The percentage of one-college transfer 
students living in residence halls (29 percent) was greater 
than the percentage of multi-college transfer students living 
in residence halls (16 percent) . Few of either group (less 
than five percent) lived in sorority- fraternity houses or 
off-campus with their parents. 



49 



Table 6. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students 
By Living Arrangement 

Type 



Living Arrangement One-College Multi -College 

Off-campus (apart from parents) 97 (651) 43 (801) 
Off-campus (with parents) 5 (3%) 1 (2%) 

Residence Hall 43 (29^) 9 (16%) 

Sorority-Fraternity House 5 (5% ) 1 (2%) 

TOTAL 150 (100%) 54 (1001) 

Veteran Status . Table 7 provides a breakdown of both 
groups of transfer students by their veteran status - -service 
in the United States Armed Forces. Percentages of veterans 
were approximately the same in each group. Over 93 percent of 
each transfer group were not considered veterans. 

Table 7. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students 
By Veteran Status 

Type 



Veteran Status One-College Multi-College 

Yes 10 (7%) 3 (6%) 

No 139 (93% ) 51 (94%) 

TOTAL 149 (100%) 54 (100%) 

Present Academic Major at the University of Florida . Table 
8 presents a breakdown of those majors identified by at least 
five transfer students from both groups. The three majors 
most commonly identified were Architecture (13), Undecided (13), 
and Pre-Vet (11). In all, the transfer students identified 78 
different majors. 



50 



Table 8. Distribution of Most Commonly Identified Majors 



Major Number 



Anthropology 5 

Architecture 13 

Business 5 

Chemistry 5 

English 5 

Journalism g 

Nursing 7 

Pharmacy 6 

Political Science 8 

Pre-Vet H 

Psychology g 

Undecided 13 



Note: In order for an academic major to appear in this table, 
at least five students had to identify that particular 
major. 

College or School Enrolled in, Fall Quarter, 1974 . Table 
9 presents the number and percentage of transfer students en- 
rolled in any one of thirteen colleges or schools which are open 
to undergraduates at the University of Florida. Over half 
(59 percent) of one-college transfer students were enrolled in 
the University College. All freshmen and sophomores at the 
University of Florida are automatically classified as a student 
in the University College. Some juniors can also be enrolled 



51 



in the University College. The next largest enrollment was 
in the College of Arts and Science (13 percent) . The multi- 
college transfer student's enrollment in University College 
was smaller--only 24 percent. The largest enrollment of 
multi-college transfer students was in the College of Arts 
and Science. The percentage (26 percent) was double that of 
one-college transfer students. Combining the two groups, the 
largest enrollment of transfer students was in University 
College (51 percent). The next largest combined enrollment 
was in the College of Arts and Science (17 percent), followed 
by the College of Engineering and the College of Journalism, 
each having 6 percent of the students. 



52 



Table 9. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students 
By College Enrolled in, Fall Quarter, 1974 



Type 

^ol^gge One-College Multi-College 

University College 90 (59%) 14 (241) 

Agriculture 4 (3|) 3 (yo^^ 

Architecture and Fine Arts 2 (2%) 3 (7%) 

Arts and Science 20 (131) 14 (261) 

Business Administration 6 (3%) 1 (i%) 

Education 2 (21) 5 (9%) 

Engineering 7 (5"0 5 (91) 

Forest Resources and 

Conservation 

Health Related Professions 4 (3%) 1 (2%) 

Journalism and Communications 8 (5%) 4 (7|) 

Nursing 2 (1%) 1 (2%) 

Pharmacy 4 (313 2 (4%) 

Physical Education, 

Health and Recreation 

Undecided 1 (1°^ ) 3 (6%) 

TOTAL 150 (100%) 54 (100%) 



Approximate Grade Point Average at Previous Institution . 
Table 10 presents the number and percentage of transfer student; 
based upon their estimated grade point average at the previous 
institution or institutions of attendance. The majority of 
students, in both groups, estimated their grade point average 
to be a B. A slightly larger percentage of multi -college 



53 



transfer students (20 percent) than one-college transfer 
students (17 percent) estimated their grade point average to 
be an A. A larger percentage of one-college transfer students 
(26 percent) than multi-college transfer students (17 percent) 
estimated their grade point average to be a C. Only one 
student in the entire sample considered his average less than 



a C, 



Table 10. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students 

By Approximate Grade Point Average at Previous 
Institution 



Grade Point Average One-Colleg e '^^^ Multi-Colle.ae 

^ 25 (17%) 11 (201) 



B 



85 (571) 33 (611) 

C 40 (26%) 9 (17%) 



D 



1 (2%) 

'^^'^^^ 150 (100%) 54 (100%) 



Financial Aid for First Quarter at the University of 
Florida . Table 11 presents the number and percentage of 
transfer students based on the type of financial aid they 
received fall quarter, 1974. In both groups, the majority of 
transfer students did not receive financial aid because they 
did not apply for it. Altogether 85 percent of one-college 
transfer students did not receive aid, though 6 percent applied 
for it. Of the multi-college transfer students, 77 percent did 
not receive aid of any kind though 10 percent applied for it. 



54 



0£ the seven percent who checked "combination," all 10 
students checked the same combination- -"did not apply" and 
"part-time work of£-campus." 

Table 11. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students 
By Financial Aid Situation 



Type 



• 1 A^^ nne-Collef^e Multi -College 
Financial Aid uut; v^uj-xc^c: 2_ 

116 (79%) 36 (671) 



4 (3%) 2 (4%) 

5 (3%) 2 (4%) 



Did not apply 
Applied but no reply 
Applied but did not receive 
Received scholarship 3 (21) 2 (41) 

4 (3%) 5 (9%) 

2 iVo) 



Received loan 

Basic Educational Opportunity 
Grant 

Part-time employment with 
University 



3 (2°0 

Part-time work off-campus 4 (3''o) 1 (1^) 

2 (4%) 



G. I. Bill 



A combination of two or . 

more of the above 6 (4% ) — 4 UO. 

147 (100%) 54 (100%) 



TOTAL 



Ed 



ucational Goals. Table 12 presents both the number and 



percentage of transfer students identified by their particular 
educational goals. In both groups, the largest number of 
students intended to stop at the Bachelor's degree. A 
greater percentage of multi-college transfer students planned 
to go beyond the Bachelor's (59 percent) than did one-college 



55 



transfer students (53 percent). Of the one-college transfer 
students, more planned to go to a professional school (26 
percent) than did multi-college transfer students (22 percent), 
but less planned to obtain a Master's (21 percent to 29 
percent of the multi-college transfer student) . 

Table 12. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students 
By Educational Goals 



Type 

Educational Goals One-College Multi-College 

BA or BS 70 (47%) 22 (411) 

Master's . 32 (21%) 16 (29%) 

Doctorate 5 (41) 3 (61) 

Professional (law. 

Medicine, etc.) 40 (26%) 12 (22%) 

Other 3 (2% ) 1 (2%) 

TOTAL 150 (100%) 54 (100%) 



Student Classification, Fall Quarter, 1974 . Table 13 
identifies the number and percentage of transfer students by 
their student classification, fall quarter, 1974. Of the 
one-college transfer students, the largest number were classi- 
fied as sophomores (47 percent) while of the multi -college 
transfer students, the largest number were classified as 
juniors (59 percent). In both groups, the smallest number of 
transfers were classified as 5-year students (less than one 
percent) , followed by seniors (seven percent) and freshmen 
(nine percent). Combining both transfer groups, almost an 



56 



equal number of sophomores and juniors transferred to the 
University of Florida (41 percent sophomores and 42 percent 
juniors). The multi-college transfer students seem to 
transfer to the University of Florida at a later stage in 
their education than do one-college transfer students. For 
example, 98 percent of the multi-college transfer group were 
sophomores or higher, compared with 87 percent of the one- 
college transfer group. Seventy-four percent of the multi- 
college transfer group were juniors or above compared to 40 
percent of the one-college transfer group. 

Table 13. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students 

By Student Classification, Fall Quarter, 1974 



Student Classification Type 

Fall Quarter, 1974 One-College Multi-College 

Freshman 18 (13%) 1 (2%) 

Sophomore 71 (47%) 13 (24%) 

Junior 53 (35%) 32 (59%) 

Senior 8 (5%) 7 (13%) 

5-Year Student __0 1 (^^^ 

TOTAL 150 (100%) 54 (100%) 



Student Status, Fall Quarter, 1974 . Table 14 identifies 
the number and the percentage of transfer students by their 
student status at the University of Florida. In both groups, 
the clear majority were full-time students. However, a 
greater percentage of multi-college transfer students (11 
percent) were likely to carry 11 hours or less than one- 
college transfer students (4 percent). 



57 



Table 14. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students 
By Student Status, Fall Quarter, 1974 

Student Status Type" 



Fall Quarter, 1974 One-College Multi -College 

Full-time 

(12 hours or more) 145 (96%) 48 (89%) 

Part-time 

(11 hours or less) 5 (4% ) 6 (11%) 

TOTAL 150 (100%) 54 (100%) 



Parents' Estimated Annual Income . Table 15 provides a 
breakdown of transfer students by parents' estimated annual 
income. The largest category for both groups of transfer 
students was the $20,000 or more bracket. However, the 
percentage of one-college transfer students from this bracket 
(49 percent) was greater than that of multi-college transfer 
students in the same income bracket (38 percent). In addition, 
in the lower two brackets ($9,999 or less) there was a greater 
percentage of multi-college transfer students (23 percent) 
than one-college transfer students (12 percent). 

Table 15. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students 
By Parents' Estimated Annual Income 



Parents' Estimated Type 



Annual Income One-College Multi-College 

Less than 6,000 11 (8%) 3 (6%) 

6.000-9,999 5 (4%) 9 (17%) 

10,000-14,999 27 (19%) 9 (17%) 

15,000-19,999 28 (20%) 12 (22%) 

20,000 or more 69 (49% ) JJ (38%) 

TOTAL 140 (100%) 50 (100%) 



58 



Characteristics of Institutions Previously Attended 

This section describes the responses generated from 
question 12 of the questionnaire. The choice of institutional 
characteristics as found in this section was based upon the 
findings of previous studies of transfer students and the in- 
stitutions from which they transferred, and those character- 
istics which this researcher thought might have a relationship 
with problems identified by transfer students. The Yearbook 
of Higher Education provided the statistical data on those 
institutions identified in question 12. 

The researcher was not able to treat the data for both 
one-college and multi-college transfer students in the same 
way. Because of the diversity and number of different colleges 
attended by multi-college transfer students, the major part 
of this section is concerned only with the one-college transfer 
student and the institutions they attended. 

The Institutions Previously Attended by Multi-College 
Transfer Students . Table 16 presents a more detailed picture 
of the types of institutions attended by multi-college transfer 
students. This represents approximately one-fourth of all the 
transfer students sampled. Of the 54 students in this group, 
32 attended at least one college in Florida of the two or 
more colleges they attended before transferring to the Uni- 
versity of Florida. Therefore, approximately 60 percent of 
the multi-college transfer students attended at least one 
college, two-year or four-year, in Florida. 



59 



Table 16. Frequency Distribution of Multi-College Transfer 
Students By Types of College Previously Attended 



Typ e 



Number 



Both Four-Year Colleges in Florida 7 

A Junior College and a Four-Year 

College in Florida 13 

A Four-Year College in Florida and 

Another College Out-of-State 12 

Both Four-Year Colleges Out-of-State 12 

Attended Three or More Colleges 10 

TOTAL 54 



Type of Control . Table 17 presents the number and 
percentage of one-college transfer students by the type of 
control exercised over the college previously attended. The 
most common type of control was by a state (81, 54 percent). 
The next most common type of control was private which 
represented 21 percent of the sample. Those colleges which 
were identified as having been associated with a specific 
religious sect, represented 24 percent of the sample. The most 
prevalent of the religiously associated colleges were the 
Baptist (seven percent) followed closely by those students who 
came from Roman Catholic colleges and Methodist colleges (six 
percent each) . 



60 



Table 17. Frequency Distribution of One-College Transfer 
Students by Type of Control of College 
Transferred From 



Type of Control 



One-College Transfer Student 
Number Percent 



State 

Federal 

Private 

Roman Catholic 

Presbyterian 

Methodist 

Baptist 

Disciples of Christ 

Other 

TOTAL 



81 
1 

32 
9 

4 

9 

11 

1 

0_ 

150 



541 


11 


1\% 


6% 


3% 


6% 


7% 


1% 






1001 



Type of Student Body . Of the 150 colleges previously 
attended by one-college transfer students, 147 were coed, 
2 were all-male, and 1 was all-female. The respective 
percentages were 97 percent, 2 percent, and 1 percent. 

Enrollments of Previously Attended Institutions . Table 
18 presents information concerning the student enrollments 
of the colleges previously attended by one-college transfer 
students. The largest group, approximately one-third (33 
percent) , of these students attended institutions whose en- 
rollment was between 10,000 and 19,999. All but 13 students 
attended colleges smaller than the University of Florida, 
which falls in the 20,000-29,999 category. These students 



61 



represent 89 percent of the one-college transfer students. 
Only eight percent attended colleges with an enrollment less 
than 1,000 and only six percent attended colleges with an 
enrollment over 30,000. 

Table 18. Frequency Distribution of One-College Transfer 
Students by Size of College Previously Attended 



One-College Transfer Student 



Size Number Percent 

Less than 200 1 1^ 

200-499 1 1^° 



500-999 9 6% 

1000-2499 24 16% 

2500-4999 16 11°^ 

5000-9999 36 24% 



10,000-19,999 50 33% 

20,000-29,999 3 2% 

30,000 or more 10 6% 

TOTAL 150 10 0% 



Location by State of Institutions Previously Attended . 
Table 19 provides information concerning the location of 
colleges previously attended by one-college transfer students. 
The greatest number came from the state of Florida (40 percent) 
followed by New York (8 percent). North Carolina (5 percent), 
Georgia (4 percent) and Alabama, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, 
and Vermont with 3 percent each. Of the 50 states in the United 
States, 21 are not represented by the students in this sample. 



62 



Counting Puerto Rico, 122 o£ the transfer students came from 
states which were located directly on the eastern seaboard of 
the United States. This represents 81 percent of the sample. 
Of these 122, 61 percent or 75 came from states south of the 
Mason Dixon Line. 



Table 19. Frequency Distribution by States of Institutions 
Previously Attended 



State Number 

Alabama ^ 

California 2 

Colorado 1 



Connecticut 



Hawaii 
Illinois 



Iowa 
Kansas 

Kentucky 



2 



Florida 60 

Georgia ^ 



Indiana 2 



2 
2 
1 



Louisiana 2 

Maryland 4 

Massachusetts _ 5 

Michigan 2 

Mississippi 1 

New Jersey ^ 

New York 12 

North Carolina 8 

Oklahoma 1 

Pennsylvania . 5 

South Carolina 2 

Tennessee 4 

Texas 2 

Vermont 5 

Virginia 3 

West Virginia 1 

District of Columbia 2 

Puerto Rico 2 

Country outside of U.S.A. 3_ 

TOTAL 150 



63 



Reasons for Transferring 

This researcher examined both the reasons students leave 
an institution and the reasons why they transferred to the 
University of Florida. The reasons chosen in the question- 
naire were based upon reasons identified in the related 
literature reviewed by this researcher. 

Reasons for Leaving Former College or University . Table 
20 provides a list of reasons of one-college transfer students 
for leaving former college or university, and Table 21 provides 
a similar list for multi-college transfer students. The total 
in each column was obtained by adding up the number of 
responses to the particular choice. The rank order was based 
on the number of total responses to each reason. 

For both groups of transfer students, the category "other" 
received the most responses. Table 22 presents a summary of 
those responses by both groups of transfer students. The most 
prevalent response in the "other" category was that the 
particular program desired by the student was either inadequate 
or non-existent at the former college. This was very similar 
to the response which ranked third for both groups - -"Disappointed 
in program for which I was enrolled." Regarding Tables 21 and 
22, the item receiving the second most responses was "Lack 
of interest" by both groups of transfer students. The reason 
ranked fourth was different for each group. The one-college 
transfer students "Found the academic program more difficult 
than anticipated" and the multi-college transfer students 
felt that "Grades were low." Overall it appears that students 



64 





r^ >-. 
































c o 


to 


•^ 


00 


o 


(Nl 


I— 1 


CTi 


O 


rH 


r- 


(Nl 


LO 


to 


r—{ 




03 T3 








r-( 


1— ( 


t— 1 






I— t 








I— 1 






Oi ^ 
































O 
































1—1 
































03 
































4-" 


(NJ 


':r 


«* 


r~- 


K) 


-* 


hO 


(Nl 


■^ 


oo 


r-^ 


to 


I— 1 


1—1 




O 


'a- 


(Nl 


l—t 








1—1 


(Nl 




fH 


"5)- 


(Nl 




00 




H 






























t/) 
































d) 


^ 






























t/) 


pC !-i 0) 


to 


K) 


1— t 


o 


fSl 


r^j 


I— 1 


1— 1 


o 


O 


LO 


(NJ 


o 


rP 


c 


-t-" O 5 






























o 


'd- O 






























p. 


f— 1 






























t/1 
































d) 


t3 






























Ci 


5h 
^0 


•^ 


(Nl 


rg 


1—1 


r-l 


(VJ 


T— 1 


vO 


T— 1 


LO 


r-- 


fSJ 


f— 1 


to 


4-1 
































o 
































s-> 


'd 


1— ( 


to 


tn 


i-i 






I—l 


LO 


(NJ 


00 


<» 


r— 1 


o 


LO 


0) 


C 


r-H 


1—1 


















r-l 


I— 1 




I— 1 


X3 


rM 






























e 
































D 
































2 


































■M 


«* 


vO 


o 


LO 






o 


r-- 


1—1 


LO 


r-- 


CO 


o 


c^ 




(/) 


(Nl 












rH 








1— 1 






>o 


1— 1 




I— 1 

r— 1 

o 




























T3 


!-i 




























0) 


C 






















lU 






■(-> 


OJ 


4-> 




















!h 






03 




r-H 




















(U 






U 


t/5 


=3 




















X 






•H 


03 


o 




















3 






-o 


3 


•H 




















o 






c 




U-l 




















trt 


m 




HH 


1— 1 


•H 


4-> 


















1— 1 


0) 

1—1 




X 


-G 


-o 


03 


0) 


















3 




•(-> 


U 




D 


!-< 
















c 


P 




•H 


•H 


(U 


a- 


CD 










0) 


O (U 




o 


0) 




S-i 


^ 


Sh 


0) 


JS 










W) 


•H (50 




•H 


C M 




o 


3 


o 


T3 


■M 










1-1 (U 


E QJ 




p 


• H (U 




•H 




s 


CC 












CO l—t 


CD 1— 1 




03 


03 1—1 




!-( 


i-^ 


Ti 


C 


c 










•H 1— 1 


Td rH 




U 


P r-H 




Cl, 


o 

M-i 


gram 
pate 


•H 

03 


o 

•H 
P 

03 










o o 
o u 
if) 

CD 


03 O 
O U 
03 




3 


P O 
0) O 
U 

tP 






c5 


O 'H 


3 


U 










ox 


O X 




X 


o o 






^ 


in U 




3 










p p 


P P 




E 


p 






M 


CL-H 


C 


t3 


















(/) 






o 


•P 


o 


<U 










p ^ 


^ l-H 




(D 


P c 






!-H 


U C 


■H 










(U 


t/i o 


t/1 o 




> 


t/5 o 






a 


•i-t 03 


p 


<u 








s 


3 


a 




O 


3 'H 








^ 


u 


u 








o 


•i-iP 


•1— ,4-< 


P 


P 


•i->P> 






c 


S tj 


3 


c 




3 




»— * 


TD C 


'O c 


1/) 


D, 


-a 03 






■H 


13 03 


S-4 


03 


trt 


O 






03 (U 


03 OJ 


cu 


E 


03 1-1 








03 -C 


•M 


r-* 


C 


1—1 




p 


e 


E 


p 


•r-l 


3 






-o 


U 


t/l 


•H 


o 






03 


o c 


o c 


<u 




O DO 






0) 


03 1— I 


c 


l-M 


If) 


(D 






P o 


P o 


p 


o 


+j <X) 






■p 




•H 




CO 


P 




t/) 


p 


p 


c 


p 


P 






c 


O C 




O 





O 




C 


X'H 


X-H 


• H 




X 






• H 


JZ 03 


O 


•M 


p 


3 


(U 


o 


p > 


p > 




0) 


P 13 




!/1 


o 


•P X 


X 








oc 


•H 


•H C 


•rH C 


<p 


p 


•H C 




c 


Cu 


P 


p 


(U 


(— • 


If) 


CO 


P 


1-1 a; 


1-1 (U 


o 


•H 


i-l 03 




o 


Cu 


T3 




1—1 


4-1 


<v 


■ H 


■r^ 


•H 


•H 




t/5 


•H 


p 


t/1 


CO 


C 


4-> 


X) 


T— 1 


^3 


p 


•T3 


x 


X 


^ 


(U 


X 


a; 


03 


(fl 


3 


!— 1 


03 


03 


03 


p 


C 


03 


03 


o 


•T3 


03 


X 


q; 


■H 


O 


(U 


C 


01 


P 


03 


o 


C 


C 


03 




C 


■p 




oi 


Q 


u, 


Uh 


3 


a: 


U 


S 


u 


1— 1 


1—1 


J 


< 


H- 1 


O 



65 





O 




H 




-C 




P Si 




'3- O 


bO 




C 


n3 


•H W 


Sh 


> ■•-> 


ro 


CS PI 




0) (D 




H-J-d 




3 


13 


M -p 


C 


O CO 


CO 


M-l 




S-i 




Crt (D 




C >+^ 




O (/I 


P 


t/i c 


t/5 


03 ca 


I— 1 


01 ^ 




Pi H 




O (U 




■p ao 




0) 




in 1—1 




OJ r-H 


T3 


tn O 


<U 


C U 


P 


O ' 


Oj 


Ph'H 


U 


tf) ■»-> 


■H 


0) rH 


T3 


Oi 3 


C 


S 


HH 


<4^ 




O "-H 


>, 


o 


P 


f-4 


•H 


(U C 


5- 


TJ o 


O 


^ -H 


•H 


O -P 


S-i 


3 


ex 


^ P 




C -H 




CO P 




Di w 




C 




TJ \-> 




c 




03 t/1 




3 




!-> O 




OJ -H 




,^ > 




s 0> 




3 i- 





2 &, 

iH 
CM 

V 

1— I 

ns 



o 



03 



10 

c 
o 
(/) 

03 

Di 



ro 



rg 



cn 



CO 



00 



o 



CO 



O O 1— ( rsi t^ \0 <Ni 



O O O O O rH O 



o o 



00 



ro 



K5 



O 



vO 



to 






TJ 






























(U 






























rH 






























1— 1 






























O 






























W 






























c 
























(U 






0) 


P 

1— t 






















o> 






t/l 


3 






















X 






03 


u 






















3 






S 


•H 






















10 


to 




HH 


•H 




0) 
P 


















rH 

0) 


0) 01 
iH 00 




r* 


13 




03 


0) 


















3 O 




O 






3 


5-1 
















c 


J-i rH 




•H 


OJ 




cr 


d) 










0) 


U 0) 




o 


iH 




^ 


Jh 




(D 


X 










M 


•H DO 




•H 


c o 




s 


o 

E 




13 
03 


p 










rH 
nS rH 


E « 




p 

03 


■H U 
03 




>- 




-^3 


C 


c 










•H r-( 


13 rH . 




u 


P 0) 




o 


E 


a> 


•H 


o 










u o 


03 O 




3 


^H X 




M-i 


03 


p 




•H 










o u 


U U 




13 


01 P 






1-1 


03 


t/) 


p 










I/) 


03 




0> 


U 




E 


M a 


o3 


03 










0) 


0) 






<P 




03 


o 


■ H 


3 


u 










o x; 


O X 




>^ 


o o 




Si 


f-l 


(J 




3 










p p 


P P 




E 


p 




tao 


a 


•iH 


C 


13 


















t/l 




O 




P 


o 


0) 










P M-i 


P M-H 




0) 


P c 




s-> 


u 


C 


• l-l 










(U 


!/5 O 


t/) O 




> 


trt o 




D- 


• H 


03 


p 


(D 








e 


3 


3 




o 


3 -H 






s 




u 


U 








o 


•1— >P 


•r-vP 


P 


^H 


•^P 




C 


0) 13 


3 


c 




s 




X 


TS C 


13 C 


10 


& 


13 03 




•H 


T^ 


03 


>-i 


03 


t/l 


o 






03 


03 <U 


0> 


E 


03 rH 






03 X 


P 


C 


C 


1—1 




p 


p: 


E 


p 


•H 


3 




13 


O 




(/5 


■H 


o 






03 


o S 


o c 


01 




O 00 




0) 


03 


1 — 1 


c 


<P 


^ 


0) 






P o 


P o 


p 


o 


P 0) 




P 






•rH 




03 


il 




lA 


;-< 


f-l 


c 


p 


p 




C 


O 


C 




o 


0> 


01 




c 


X-H 


X-H 


•H 




>^ 




•H 


r^ 


03 


01 


p 


S-i 


5 


0> 


o 


P > 


p > 




0) 


P 13 




o 


P X 


£ 








OB 


•H 


■H c 


•H C 


M-l 


!- 


•H C 




p- 




P 


P 


o 


X 


to 


03 


p 


1-1 0) 


rH 0> 


o 


•H 


rH 03 




Q- 


13 






1—1 


P 


0) 


•H 


•H 


•H 


•H 




t/5 


•H 


p 


03 


C 




P 


42 


1— ( 


13 


Sh 


13 


-Q 


X 


^ 


0) 


-Q 





t/i 


3 




t-H 


03 


03 


o3 


5-1 


c 


03 


03 


u 


-^3 


03 


-C 


•H 


o 




(U 


C 





S-i 


03 


O 


C 


C 


03 




e: 


p 


Q 


(-L, 




Ci, 


3 


^ 


U 


S 


u 


I— 1 


1 — 1 


J 


< 


H-l 


o 



66 



Table 22. Frequency Distribution of "Other" Reasons 
for Leaving Previous Institution 



Reasons Number of Responses 

49 



Program inadequate or non-existent 
at previous college 



Unhappy with some aspects of experience 
at previous college (size, people, 
students, collete, etc.) 17 

Change needed or wanted 14 

Friend, parents, or spouse here 13 

Prefer location of the University of Florida 

(weather, Florida, sunshine, etc.) 11 

Dual enrollment in another college while 

high school student 5 

Planned on transferring eventually to the 
University of Florida from college 
of previous attendance 4 

High cost of attending previous college 2_ 



TOTAL 



115 



Note: The researcher has summarized these reasons based upon 
the responses that appeared in the completed question- 
naires. 



67 



desired to leave either because programs were inadequate and/or 
non-existent or there was a lack o£ interest on the part of 
the transfer student. 

Reasons for Transferring to the University of Florida . 
Tables 23 and 24 provide a list of reasons why one-college 
and multi-college transfer students decided to attend the 
University of Florida. In both groups, the major reason for 
transferring to the University was "Strong program in intended 
major." The second most frequent response for one-college 
transfer students was "General impression of campus and 
students favorable" while for the multi-college transfer 
student, "General academic reputation of the University" was 
ranked second. Ranked very high for both groups was "Close 
to home;" the multi -college transfer students ranked it third 
while the one-college transfer students ranked it fourth. 
The first four reasons were the same for each group, but in a 
slightly different order. 

Table 25 summarizes the responses to the "Other" category. 
In both groups the "Other" category was ranked rather low. 
The major reason identified in the "Other" category was "The 
availability of a program, school or college at the University 
of Florida." 



68 







ri^ ^ 
































C 
































CO 'O 


LO 


■cr 


<» 


t-O 


rH 


t— 1 


f^J 


to 


C^ 


o 


(Nl 


\o 


t~- 






Ci t- 












I-H 




1-H 




rH 


<—( 










o 
































i-H 
































CO 


>o 


Ol 


LO 


o 


O 


\o 


o 


to 


tn 


rH 


LO 


o 


CTi 






•!-> 


rO 


•^ 


(~sl 


LO 


t^ 




VO 




(Nl 


tVl 




to 


CO 






o 
































H 






























1/5 


i-i 




























QD 


(U 


X <L> 


r— 1 


oo 


'S- 


\o 


o 


O 


^o 


(VI 


^o 


LO 


o 


•rj- 


r-t 


C (/) 


t/) 


■t-> f-i 3 


r— 1 












I— I 










rH 




•H ^-> 


c 


■* O O 




























J- C 


o 


J 




























!-i <U 


a 






























(U TS 


t/i 






























m 3 


<u 


T3 




























(/) •(-> 


Di 


!-( 


\o 


00 


r- 


LO 


o 


'a- 


to 


r-l 


•^ 


^ 


tN) 


"TT 


"t 


c CO 




I-O 










rH 




rH 














CO 


4-1 






























^ ^ 


O 






























H <U 
































<-r-l 


^ 


■TJ 


o 


c» 


rH 


'd- 


^ 


1— ( 


CTi 


O 


LO 


'S- 


t-O 


LO 


LO 


Sh !/1 


o; 


c 


i-H 


rH 


r— ( 


CNl 


i-H 




rH 














o c 


J2 


C^ 




























M-l 03 


E 






























i^ 


3 






























!fl H 


2 






























C 
































O 0) 




4-t 




























(/) 00 




(A 


CT> 


LO 


•^ 


r— 1 


O 


rH 


LO 


o 


00 


00 


o 


f- 


CTl 


CO 0) 


1— 1 




1— ( 




CNl 


LO 




rH 












rH 


0) r-H 






























Di rH 






























o 






























o u 






























■M 1 





























































t/) C 


-d 








>s 










<a 










(L O 


(D 








■M 










M 











(/) 


■t-l 








•r-l 










(U 




ac 






C "4-1 


CO 








to 










^ 











o o 


u 








^ 














rH 






CL 


■H 








<u 










tS 




rH 






to CO 


ta 








> 















o 






<u -o 


c 








•H 















(J 






Ci -H 


1 — 1 








c 








E 


u 










^ 










3 








CO 


o 




to 






4-1 o 


X 
















U 


3 




O 3 






O r-l 


•i-j 








0) 








•> C30 


to 




• H O 






Ph 


•r^ 








jn 








X o 






E -H 






^ 


5-1 








•p 


u 





T3 


T3 'r* 


o 




> 






0) M-i 


O 










o 


U 


r-l 


3 CU 


■M 




'^ 






t3 O 


■H 








M-l 


•'— 1 





5 


■M 






CO Jh 






^ 


i- 








O 


CO 


^ 




to to 


X 




o cu 






O >s 


a, 










E 




to 


i-^ 


■p 




CO 






■M 










c 




to 


3 


■M O 


■H 




■p 






^ -H 










o 


Id 





CI, 


c c 


c 




?H CO 






C (/) 










•H 





• H 


E 


O 


3 




o 






CO U 










■t-l 


-a 


■M 


CO 


nd j=; 


■M 











Oi <u 










CO 


c 


•H 


U 


r- 


fi 




u u 






> 










4J 





C 


1-H 


!-. 


O 




o c 






T3 -h 










3 


•»-> 


3 


t+-l X 


a o 


cu 




^ 






C C 










a 


c 


+-> 


O CO 





a 




3 






CO 3 












•H 


S-i 

o 


C O 


c -d 


o 





C 4-1 






Si OJ 








0) 




c 


CL 


o > 


•H 3 


^H 


u 


3 C 







0) x: 








5-( 


tJ 


•H 


a 


•H CO 


■(H 





c 


O -H 


u 




X! *-> 








0) 


•H 




o 


to t-H 


(h to 


■t-> 





(J 







e 








-C 


E 


E 




to 


o 


■M 


.3 


to 


JZ 




3 O 











53 


CO 


T3 


to 


t-w to 





^^ 


t+H - 


CI, 




Z -M 






E 


(U 


TJ 


J-i 


•r-t 


J-. ■P 


CO 


J3 


t+-i 


O !-c 


to 








(U 


o 


5-. 


CO 


tiO 


CO 


o. c 


>^ 




C 


O 


o 








> 


x: 


0) 


U 


o 




E 


■M to 


CO 


•H 


C to 


E 




• 




•H 




3 


CO 


^ 


r-t 


•H -3 


•H S-l 






O -H 


■p 




to 




to 


o 






G. 


CO 


3 


C 


TS 


rH 


■H > 


CO 




(M 


Cfl 


C 


■M 


to 


r-l 




■rH 


rH ■(-! 


3 > 


CO 


CO 


.|_) -r3 








C 


0) 




TS 


CO 


bO 


U 


CO to 


■M o 


r-" 


■M 


to CO 


^H 




d) 


o 


a. 





c 


^- 


C 


c 


U 


!h 




c 





CO 


!-i 


1— 1 


to 


X 


to 


0) 


OJ 


o 


CO 





O 


■^-> 





tyj 


•H 





C8 


CO 


(U 


o 


■H 


c 


Jx 


G 


C 


a, 


rH 


S-t 


tM 


CJ 


X 





c 


r— I 


i-i 


0) 


•M 


• H 





a 





CO 


3 


o 


■l-l 


E-" 


( 


^ 1 


H-( 


U 


u. 


o 


CO 


Uh 


CJ 


o 


u. 


a, 


W 


(7^ 


o 



69 



DO -P 

c c 

•H QJ 

!-. 3 

<U •!-> 

M-t CO 
t« 

C >- 

CO 0) 

^ M-l 

C 

O >H 

(/) O 

CI bO 

O 0) 

t/l r-H 

rt 1— I 

(D O 



t/l 


3 


0) 


S 


tfl 




C M-( 


O 


o 


a 




tn 


CO 


0) t3 


ttJ 


•H 




^ 


Uh 


o 


O 


t-H 




tu 


(-1 




(U 14-^ 


13 


o 


V- 




O 


>v 




4-1 


^ 


• H 


c 


tn 


ns 


i-^ 


Pi 


(U 




> 


n3 


•H 


C 


C 


CO 


ZD 


Jh 


O 


<u 


J=. 


X5 


■(-> 


B 




3 


o 


2 


■p 


• 




CM 




(U 




r-t 




XI 




CO 




H 





t/) 

c 
o 
CM 

0) 
Di 

O 

S 
3 
2 



CO >-. 

Di o 



CO 

o 

H 
+-> 



O O 



r3 

NO 



T3 



i/l 



T3 
0) 
■P 

CO 

u 

•H 
t3 
C 



■1-1 

•H 
S-i 
O 

•H 

Oh 



to 

o 
(/5 

CO 

o 



LO ro O (Ni I— ( 00 



rO r- 00 O 00 hO 

r-l 1— I r-J (VI 



fSJ !>J o O O Csl 



o 



CTl LO O t^ O 



to 



(Nl 



to 



CNJIOrHCNir-JO O O":)- Ol— ItO 



t~^'r}-'d-o^r--o to olo 



to 



fN)OOtOCT)Cr>i— I LfJ OrH Oi— Irt 









>> 




























+J 
















(D 












■H 
















00 












(rt 
















(U 












i-. 
















iH 












<D 
















rH 












> 
















o 












•H 
















u 












C 










e 


















3 










CO 




u 


tfl 

3 












(U 










•> oo 




■H 


o 












^ 










XO 




E 


•H 












■M 


o 




TS 
C 




t3 !-■ 

3 a 




n3 


> 
0) 












4-1 


•r-l 


0) 


CO 




P 




CO 


!-i 












O 


CO 

S 


X 


t/i 




in 




o 

CO 


a 












c 




tn 


3 




P o 






p 












o 


13 


0) 


Cu 




c c 




^ 


CO 












•H 


(U 


•H 


E 




o 




o 














■p 


^3 


P 


CO 




■X) X 






01 












CO 


C 


■H 


o 


(U 


c 




JH 


o 












p 


(U 


C 




r-H 


QJ iH 




o 


c 












3 


p 


3 


<-H ^ 


P- o 




r-l 


<v 












CU 


c: 


P 


O 


CO 


0) 




(D 


3 












(D 


• H 


%-> 




S- 


T3 >N 




to 


i-H 












!-• 




O 


c 


o 


CTJ 


<u 


C <Pi 










<u 




C 


CL 


o 


> 


•H 3 


u 


3 


c 


(D 








^ 


O 


•H 


a 


•iH 


CO 


p 


c 


O 


• H 


P 








<p 


•H 




o 


!/5 


<4-l 


>-i to 


OJ 


o 




0) 








j=: 


e 


s 




[/5 




O 


3 




t/) 


-C 






<u 




(u 


CO 


t3 


OJ 


tfl 


M-i tfl 


T— 1 


<+-l 


- 


o- 






s 


o 


-a 


S-i 


■ H 


!-i 


P 


CO 


<-w 


o 


S-i 


trt 




o 


o 


!h 


CO 


M 


03 


cx c 


X <U 


C 




o 


o 




> 


4= 


(U 


tj 


O 




E 


(D 


P t/5 


• H 


r^ 


to 


E 




H 




5 


CO 


)-> 


t— 1 


■H 


t3 


•H Si 




o 


■ H 


pi 




t/5 


o 






Cu 


CO 




3 


C <U 


r-H 


•H 


> 


CO 




C 


■(-> 


!/) 


r-H 




• H 


I— ( 


P 


3 > 


CO 


P -o 











T3 


CO 


£30 


u 


CO 


lA 


P O 


P 


t/l 


CO 


1—1 




a. 





C 


S-. 


c 


c 


>H 




5-1 


c 


<x> 




CO 


!-i 


X 


tfl 


0) 


0) 


o 


CO 







O 


<u 


00 




•H 


O 


<o 


o 


•H 


c 


!-. 


C 


c 




CU 


!-i 


tiO 




u 


-C 


c 


1— 1 


>-i 


<D 


P 


• H 


0) 




a 


CO 


3 




o 


p 


t—t 


u 


tu 


U 


CO 


Uh 


C3 




o 


CU 


CO 




CO 


o 



70 



Table 25. Frequency Distribution of "Other" Reasons for 
Transferring to the University of Florida 



Reasons Number of Responses 

The availability of a program, school 
or college at the University of 
Florida 18 

Weather and/or location of the University 

of Florida 11 

Friends, parents, or spouse at the 

University or near by 7 

Lower cost 3 

Wanted a change 1 

TOTAL 40 



Note: The researcher has summarized these reasons based upon 
the responses that appeared in the completed question- 
naires. 



Problems 

This section is divided into four major parts - -academic 
problems, procedural problems, extracurricular problems, and 
the open-ended question. Questions 19 through 22 are related 
to this section. 

Academic problems . Table 26 presents the number and rank 
order of one-college transfer students by academic problems 
and table 27 provides the same information concerning multi- 
college transfer students. The total number of responses by 
one-college transfer students to academic problems was 215 and 
by multi-college transfer students 80. The mean number of 
responses was 1.43 by each one-college transfer student and 
1.48 by each multi-college transfer student. 



71 



Table 26. Frequency Distribution and Rank Order o£ 

Responses to Academic Problems Encountered 
by One-College Transfer Students 



_, , Number of Rank 
P^oPlem Responses Order 

Lost credits because courses were 

not accepted 21 3 

Taking examinations 8 8 

Meeting student academic competition 10 7 

Lost credits because credit units 

were reduced 8 8 

Academic advising was inadequate 69 1 

Lost credits because I changed majors 12 6 

Academic advising was unavailable 

at registration 17 5 

Poor faculty-student relationship in 
some courses affected my work 
adversely 19 4 

Unable to participate in independent 
study, overseas study, or honors 
program because I was a transfer 
student 3 H 

Lack of uniform evaluation (grading) 4 10 

Difficulty in meeting academic demands 6 9 

Other ■ 38 2 



72 



Table 27, Frequency Distribution and Rank Order of 

Responses to Academic Problems Encountered 
by Multi-College Transfer Students 



Problem 

Lost credits because courses were 
not accepted 

Taking examinations 

Meeting student academic competition 

Lost credits because credit units 
were reduced 

Academic advising was inadequate 

Lost credits because I changed majors 

Academic advising was unavailable 

at registration 8 4 

Poor faculty-student relationship in 
some courses affected by work 
adversely 7 5 

Unable to participate in independent 
study, overseas study, or honors 
program because I was a transfer 
student 11 

Lack of uniform evaluation (grading) 5 7 

Difficulty in meeting academic demands 4 8 

Other 16 1 



Number of 


Rank 


Responses 


Order 


12 


3 


1 


10 


4 


8 


2 


9 


15 


2 


6 


6 



73 



The most frequent two responses for one-college transfer 
students were "Academic advising was inadequate" and "Other." 
The multi-college transfer group reversed these, placing 
"Other" first and "Academic advising was inadequate" second. 
Of the 150 one-college transfer students, almost half (69) 
considered academic advising inadequate. This was almost 
twice the number of responses to any other problem. Table 28 
presents a summary of "Other" responses by both groups of 
transfer students. "Size of classes too large" was cited most 
often. Both groups ranked third the loss of "credits because 
courses were not accepted." The fourth and fifth responses of 
the two groups were reversed. The one-college transfer 
students ranked "Poor faculty-student relationship" fourth and 
"Academic advising was unavailable at registration" as fifth. 
The multi-college transfer students reversed these two responses 
Both groups of transfer students ranked the loss of "credits 
because I changed majors" as sixth. 

Procedural problems . Tables 29 and 30 provide the number 
and rank order of responses to procedural problems identified 
by one-college and multi-college transfer students respectively. 
The total number of responses by one-college transfer students 
to procedural problems was 284 and by the multi-college trans- 
fer student 105. The mean number of responses was 1.89 by 
each one-college transfer student and 1,94 by each multi- 
college transfer student. The major problem identified by 
both groups was that they were "Unable to register for course 
needed when I first enrolled at the University because of late 



74 



registration appointment." "Unable to register in certain 
programs because of enrollment limits" ranked high with both 
groups; one-college transfer students ranked it third and the 
multi-college transfer students ranked it second. The two 
groups were markedly different in their remaining responses. 
"Orientation was inadequate" and "Academic bureaucracy too 
cumbersome" ranked in the top five for both groups. 

Table 28. Frequency Distribution of "Other" Academic 
Problems Encountered by Transfer Students 

Problem Number of Responses 

Size of classes too large 18 

Course requirements not realistic, 

particularly University College 9 

Registration very poor 9 

Difficulty in transferring courses 8 

The University of Florida is not 

academically oriented 3 

Academic bureaucracy a hindrance in 

obtaining an education 2 

Difficulty in courses wanted 2 

Miscellaneous 3 



TOTAL 54 



Note: The researcher has summarized these problems based 
upon the responses that appeared in the completed 
questionnaires . 



75 



Table 29. Frequency Distribution and Rank Order of 

Responses to Procedural Problems Encountered 
by One-College Transfer Students 

Number of Rank 
Problem Responses Order 

Delay in mailed communications when 

first applying to the University 35 2 

Informational publications were not 

adequate for me 15 10 

Information requested on applications 
was not appropriate for transfer 
student 5 12 

On-campus housing information and 

application were not available 

or not sent 16 9 

Off-campus housing information was not 

available or not sent 19 7 

Time lapse between submission of appli- 
cation for admission and notifica- 
tion of acceptance was too long 17 8 

Delay in evaluation of academic credit 22 6 
Orientation was inadequate 33 4 

Unable to register for course needed 
when I first enrolled at the 
University because of late 
registration appointment 44 1 

Unable to register in certain programs 

because of enrollment limits 34 3 

Academic bureaucracy too cumbersome 25 5 

Other 19 7 



76 



Table 30, Frequency Distribution and Rank Order of 

Responses to Procedural Problems Encountered 
by Multi-College Transfer Students 



Number of Rank 
Problem Responses Order 

Delay in mailed communications when 

first applying to the University 7 6 

Informational publications were not 

adequate for me 5 8 

Information requested on applications was 
not appropriate for transfer 
student 2 10 

On-campus housing information was not 

available or not sent 4 9 

Off-campus housing information was 

not available or not sent 12 4 

Time lapse between submission of 
application and notification 
was too long 6 7 

Delay in evaluation of academic credit 6 7 

Orientation was inadequate 10 5 

Unable to register for course needed 
when I first enrolled at the 
University because of late regis- 
tration appointment 17 1 

Unable to register in certain programs 

because of enrollment limits 16 2 

Academic bureaucracy too cumbersome 15 3 

Other 5 8 



77 



"Time lapse between submission of application for 
admission and notification of acceptance was too long" was 
identified as a problem by 23 or 9 percent of the transfer 
students sampled. The shortest time period identified was 
one month and the longest time period was one year. The 
mean was 4.7 months and the mode was 5 months. 

The "Other" response was ranked rather low by both 
groups. Table 31 provides a summary of those responses. 
Registration was the most common complaint among the other 
responses. The same can be said of procedural problems over- 
all- -problems associated with registration ranked very high 
with both groups of transfer students. 



Table 31. Frequency Distribution of "Other" Procedural 
Problems Encountered by Transfer Students 



Problem Number of Responses 

Various aspects of registration 

unfamiliar or confusing 7 

Information and availability of 

housing on and off campus poor 3 

Difficult to get proper classes 2 

Administration and faculty unconcerned 

about problems of students 2 

Mishandled transfer credit 1 

Academic advisement poor 1 

TOTAL 16 



Note: The researcher has summarized these problems based 
upon the responses that appeared in the completed 
questionnaires . 



78 



Extracurricular problems . Tables 32 and 33 provide the 
responses of one-college and multi-college transfer students 
respectively to extracurricular problems encountered as a 
transfer student. The total number of responses by one- 
college transfer students to extracurricular problems was 
140 and by multi-college transfer students 60. The mean 
number of responses was .93 by each one-college transfer 
student and 1.11 by each multi-college transfer student. 
Ranked first for one-college transfer students was "Meeting 
students." Ranked first for the multi-college transfer student 
was "Feeling at home at University and/or Gainesville" and 
"Feeling at home in school or college at the University." 
"Obtaining counseling services" and "Meeting students" ranked 
second for the multi -college transfer student. "Meeting 
people" and "Feeling at home" seemed to be the two major extra- 
curricular problems encountered by both one-college and multi- 
college transfer students. 

Table 34 summarizes the responses of transfer students to 
the "Other" category. "Adjusting to the University of Florida" 
ranked first. "Adjusting to Gainesville, particularly finding 
a place to live" made up the remaining number of responses. 



79 



Table 32. Frequency Distribution and Rank Order of 
Responses to Extracurricular Problems En- 
countered by One-College Transfer Students 



Number of Rank 
Problem Responses Order 



Obtaining counseling services 17 4 

Obtaining financial aid 
Participation in student activities 



8 8 
11 7 



Participation on committees or task 

forces dealing with institutional 

governance at the University 6 9 

"Feeling at home" in school or 

college at University 23 3 

"Feeling at home" at University 

and/or Gainesville 24 2 



Making friends 14 5 

Meeting students 

Other 



25 1 
12 6 



80 



Table 33. Frequency Distribution and Rank Order of 
Responses to Extracurricular Problems En- 
countered by Multi-College Transfer Students 



Number of Rank 
Problem Responses Order 

Obtaining counseling services 9 2 

Obtaining financial aid 4 5 

Participation in student activities 7 

Participation on committees or task 

forces dealing with institutional 

governance at the University 1 6 

"Feeling at home" in school or 

college at University 12 1 

"Feeling at home" at University 

and/or Gainesville 12 1 

Making friends 7 3 

Meeting students 9 2 

Other 6 4 



81 



Table 34. Frequency Distribution of "Other" Extracurricular 
Problems Encountered by Transfer Students 

Problem Number of Responses 

Adjusting to the University of 

Florida, particularly its size 8 

Adjusting to Gainesville, particularly 

finding a place to live 5 



TOTAL 13 



Note: The researcher has summarized these problems based 
upon the responses that appeared in the completed 
questionnaires . 

Responses to open-ended question . Of the 204 question- 
naires returned, 73 contained responses to question number 
22--the open-ended question. Because of the diversity and 
the length of most of the answers, the researcher summarized 
the findings. Most of the answers can be placed into 10 
categories identified by the researcher. Generally the 
responses either enlarged upon the problems identified in 
items 19, 20, and 21, or were problems that can affect all 
students and not just transfer students. The parking problem 
on campus or the shortage of books in the bookstore for a 
particular course are two examples of the latter. Table 35 
lists those responses. Of the 73 responses, 63 deal with 
problems that take place outside of the classroom. A majority 
of them deal with problems encountered in the process of 
transferring or during the first week of attendance at the 
University of Florida- -namely , registration. 



82 



Si 



X3 

E 
3 
2 



to 



vO 



C» 



o 





3 


13 
C 

I 

c 





(/I 

c 
o 

t/) 



Di 

o 

CO 

E 
E 
3 

CO 





1—1 

-a 

CO 

H 




CO 

c 
o 
a 
f) 



















•M 


























C 


c 














• M 













c 














M 


c 








13 


•r- 














Si 1 


o 








3 


+- 














O M-l 


■H 








■M 


u 






c 








5 o 


■»-> 








t/1 


»- 


X 




•H 








^-1 1 


CO 










c 


U 












4-1 


E 








v-l 


*-> 


CO 




■M 








ex 3 


Jh 











If) 


U 






# 




CO O 


o 








<+-! 


C X 




rH 






r— 1 






M-l 








t/) 


•H 


•H 
r— 1 




3 




•f-( 

to 




(/> 00 

X 


•rH 


CO 






CO 
u 


CO 


4-1 




•H • - 
^4^ X 
<4-l 1-1 


c 
o 


c 




E 




u 


to 











13 


Sh 




•H Tj 


4-) 


u 

■M 



on; ey. 
ement ; 


3 fi 
CX CO 
E 
CO Sh 

O 

1 x; 




1— I 
X3 
CO 

rH 




O 
•M 

+-» 

c 



Flori 
oo sho 




Florida; d 
and unfrieni 


CO 
O 
3 
13 



o 
u 
c 

■H 


1— I 
3 


icati 
equir 


o 


■(-> 

•H 


c 


•H 
CO 
> 
CO 




t/5 

c 
o 

•H 


ty of 
tern ti 
ssary 




X 

4-1 
•H 

IS 


unfair , 
1 diffic 


• commun 
dency r 


o 
o 


H 



■M 
CO 

3 


3 
00 

c 
o 




■l-l 

CO 
E 

o 


•H 

to 

!-i 


> 
•H 

c 


ter sys 
unnece 




sity of 
large ; 


4-> 

u 

•H 
1— I 
M-l 
C 
O 

u 
to 

r-H 
CO 

o 

00 

1—1 
CO 
c 
o 
to 


inadequate, 
drop and add 


impered by poor 
mecessary resi 
ate fees. 


tbtain: eithe 
inade 


3 


•(-) 

CO 

3 
o" 

13 
CO 
C 

•H 


to 

3 

a 

CO 


•H 
■l-> 
CO 

> 



1—1 

u 
u 

•H 


tion at the U 
dequate, quar 
rsity College 


E 



1—1 


at the Univer: 
niversity too 
endly. 






o 






u 


s-< 


CO 


CO 


X 


3 'H 


Sh 


to 


u 
o 

S-. 




TO t. ■I-' 
X 3 t/5 


o 




CO 


o 


o 


U 

3 
13 


c > 


o 

Sh 

ex 


1-1 •-t4_| 

13 C 




CX 














o 





to :r3 




C rH 3 


• •s 




to 

to 


O 
O 
U 
Cl. 


4-> 
i-H 

3 




00 
•H 


E 




•H 
■M 
CO 


X 

4-1 



to « 

Sh 


CO 
t/l 


CX 
•H O 


to 

E 






u 




to 


XI 


E 


•H 


3 -M 


^ 


M-l CLi— 1 


1—1 


c 
o 




■H 
•H 

13 




•H 
> 

13 
CO 


o 

u 


o 


5 

13 



O CO 

U 3 

CT" 


O 
O 

X 


e un 

ing 
esvi 


X 

o 

u 

CX 


CO 
to 

• H 
00 





u 



(/) 

c 

CO 
S-. 

H 




U 


CO 


•H 


■ H 
t4-l 


U 13 
O CO 


00 


Sh 4J C 
iH 


1-H 




oo 

C 

•H 

to 

3 
O 

X 




•H 

E 

13 

CO 
U 

< 


DO 

c 

•H 

S-i 
CO 


<4^ 

o 

o 

CO 


t/) 
•H 
+-> 

CO 
to 

3 


O C 

CX-H 


•H 

c 

•H 
CO 
4-1 

X 

o 


Atmosph 
me 
Ga 


CO 

c 
o 
If) 

Sh 


CX 



83 



Relationship of characteristics to major problems . A 
major problem was considered to be one identified by at least 
one-sixth of either one-college (at least 25) or multi-college 
transfer students (at least 9) . A card sorter was used to 
identify those characteristics of both students and institu- 
tions which were associated with a particular major problem. 
For a particular characteristic to be considered associated 
with a major problem, at least one-half (and more than five) 
of the students making up that particular characteristic had 
to identify the major problem. For example, if more than one- 
half of all the one-college transfer students who were juniors 
identified the loss of credit as a problem, then this was con- 
sidered a relationship. 

Table 36 presents those problems identified as major by 
both one-college and multi-college transfer students. Of 13 
major problems, 7 were associated with both groups. The 
greatest number of problems involved procedural difficulties 
(6) ; the least number involved academic difficulties (3) . 
One-college transfer students identified only eight major 
problems while multi-college transfer students identified 12. 
Multi-college transfer students seemed to encounter more 
difficulty in the area of extracurricular problems. They 
identified four major extracurricular problems while one-college 
transfer students only identified one. 



84 



Table 36. List of Major Problems Identified by One- 
College and Multi-College Transfer Students 
by Type of Problem 



Problem 



Type of Student 

One-College Multi-College 



Academic 

Lost credits because courses 

vv^ere not accepted -^ 



Academic advising was inadequate X 



X 



X X 



Other 

Procedural 

Delay in mailed communications when 

first applying to the University X 

Off-campus housing information was 

not available or not sent X 

Orientation was inadequate X X 

Unable to register for course needed 

when I first enrolled at University 

because of late registration 

appointment y y 



X 

X 



Unable to register in certain pro- 
grams because of enrollment limits X 

Academic bureaucracy too cumbersome X 

Extracurricular 

Obtaining counseling services X 

"Feeling at home" in school or 

college at University X 

"Feeling at home" at University 

and/or Gainesville X 

Meeting students X -X 



Note: A major problem is one in which at least one-sixth of 
the one-college or multi-college transfer students 
identified as a problem. 



85 



Table 37 provides a list of those student and institutional 
characteristics of which more than 50 percent of that particular 
characteristic was associated with a particular major problem, 
■'Academic advising was inadequate" was associated with the most 
student and institutional characteristics (16). Note that 
only 7 of the 13 major problems were associated with some type 
of characteristic. The remaining six problems were not 
associated with any specific student or institutional character- 
istic. In addition, almost all of the characteristics associated 
with "academic advising was inadequate" were associated with 
particular types of one-college transfer students. Of the 30 
characteristics associated with a particular problem, 24 were 
student and 6 were institutional. Out of the 24 student 
characteristics associated with major problems, the one which 
appeared most frequently was that of a transfer student in the 
College of Arts and Science (8). No institutional character- 
istics appeared more than once. 



Table 37. List of Student and Institutional Characteristics 

Associated With Identified Major Problems of Transfer 



Problem 



Academic advising 
was inadequate 



Characteristic 



One-College, Other (Race) 

One-College, Married 

One-College, Architecture 

One-College, Business Administration 

One-College, Private College 

One-College, Roman Catholic 



86 



Table 37. (continued) 



Problem 



Academic advising 
was inadequate 



"Other" (Academic) 



Orientation was inadequate 

Unable to register because 
of late registration 
appointment 



Unable to register in 
certain programs because 
o£ enrollment limits 

Off-campus housing in- 
formation was not 
available or sent 

"Feeling at Home" at 
University and/or 
Gainesville 



Characteristic 



One-College, 500-999 Enrollment 
One-College, 1000-2499 Enrollment 
One-College, 5000-9999 Enrollment 
One-College, 30,000 or more Enrollment 
One-College, B Average 
One-College, Masters Degree 
One-College, Professional 
One-College, Sophomores 
One-College, Juniors 
Multi-College, Sophomores 
One-College, Arts and Science 
Multi-College, Professional 
One-College, Arts and Science 
One-College, Agriculture 
One-College, Arts and Science 
One-College, Journalism 
Multi-College, Arts and Science 
Multi-College, Professional 
Multi-College, $15,000-19,999 income 
One-College, Arts and Science 
Multi-College, Arts and Science 
Multi-College, Arts and Science 

Multi-College, non-Florida Resident 
Multi-College, Arts and Science 



87 



Table 37. (continued) 



Note: A characteristic was identified as significant if 
more than 501 of the students associated with that 
characteristic identified a major problem. 



The Data in Review 
The present chapter reported a considerable amount of 
data about students who transferred to the University of 
Florida from four-year colleges and universities in the Fall 
quarter of 1974. As has been indicated, these data were 
gathered from questionnaires sent to 213 transfer students, 
from whom 204 useable responses were received. In order to 
help the reader obtain a complete picture of the characteristics 
of these transfer students, the characteristics of the institu- 
tions they previously attended, the reasons these students 
transferred, the problems these transfer students encountered 
at the University of Florida, and the relationships between 
characteristics and problems, the major points identified in 
this chapter are summarized below. 

1. Two groups of transfer students were identified. One 
group (the one-college transfer) consisted of 150 
transfer students who had attended only one four-year 
college before transferring to the University of 
Florida. The second group (the multi-college transfer) 
was composed of 54 transfer students who had attended 
at least two other colleges, at least one of which was 
a four-year college, before attending the University of 
Florida. 

2. The number of male transfer students exceed the number 
of female transfer students in both groups by approxi- 
mately nine percent. 

3. The predominant race of both groups of students was 
Caucasian. 



88 



4. The majority of students were single, although a 
slightly smaller percentage of multi -college transfer 
students were single than were one-college transfer 
students . 

5. The majority of students in both groups were in the 
"20-23" age group. 

6. The majority of students in both groups paid Florida 
resident tuition fees. 

7. The majority of students in both groups lived off- 
campus, apart from their parents. 

8. Less than seven percent of each transfer group were 
veterans of the U. S. Armed Forces. 

9. The academic major of the students varied among 78 
different majors identified by these students. 

10. The largest number of transfer students were enrolled 
in the University College (51 percent) followed by the 
College of Arts and Sciences (17 percent) . 

11. A majority of the transfer students in both groups estimated 
grade point averages of B or higher at the institution 

or institutions of previous attendance. 

12. The majority of students in each group did not apply 
for nor receive financial aid. 

13. The largest number of students in both groups intended 
to complete their education with a Bachelor's degree. 

A greater percentage of multi-college transfer students 
planned to go beyond the Bachelor's (59 percent) than 
did one-college transfer students (53 percent). 

14. Of the one-college transfer students, the largest number 
were classified as sophomores (47 percent) while, of the 
multi-college transfer students, the largest number were 
classified as juniors (59 percent) at the University of 
Florida. 

15. A clear majority of each group were classified as full- 
time students fall quarter, 1974. 

16. In respect to parents' estimated annual income, the 
largest category was the $20,000 or more bracket. 

17. Of the multi-college transfer students (54), 32 attended 
at least one college in Florida (two-year or four-year) 
before transferring to the University of Florida. 



89 



18. Approximately half of the one-college transfer students 
attended a state college before transferring. The re- 
maining transfer students were divided evenly between 
private and religiously affiliated colleges. 

19. Of the 150 colleges previously attended by one-college 
transfer students, 147 were coed, 2 were all-male, and 
1 was all-female. 

20. All but 13 of the one-college transfer students attended 
institutions smaller in size (enrollment) than the 
University of Florida with the largest number (33 percent) 
attending institutions whose enrollment was between 10,000 
and 19,999. 

21. The majority of one-college transfer students came from 
institutions located in states east of the Mississippi 
River and south of the Mason-Dixon Line with Florida 
being cited the most frequently (40 percent) . 

22. Overall, students left the previous institution of 
attendance because desired programs were inadequate and/or 
non-existent or there was a lack of interest on the part 
of the transfer student. 

23. The major reason for transferring to the University of 
Florida was because the University of Florida has a 
"strong program in intended major." 

24. The major academic problem identified by transfer students 
centered around academic advising and its inadequacy, 
followed closely by "Loss of credits because courses were 
not accepted." The problem identified most frequently in 
the "other" category was "Size of classes too large." 

25. The major procedural problem identified by both groups 
of gransfer students was "Unable to register for course 
needed when I first enrolled at the University of Florida 
because of late registration appointment." 

26. Though the number of responses to extracurricular problems 
was small, the "Meeting of people" and "Feeling at home" 
seemed to be the two most common extracurricular problems 
identified by transfer students. 

27. The majority of the 73 who responded to the open-ended 
question, identified problems involved in the process of 
transferring or encountered during the first week of 
attendance at the University of Florida, usually involving 
registration. 



90 



29 



30 



The greatest number of problems encountered by transfer 
students were procedural. 

Multi-college transfer students identified 12 major 
problems while one-college transfer students identified 
8 major problems . 

Of the 13 major problems identified, only 7 were 
associated with some type of institutional or student 
characteristic. Overall, there were very few character- 
istics, either student or institutional, associated with 
any particular major problems. 



CHAPTER IV 
DISCUSSION OF DATA 

This chapter discusses the findings presented in Chapter 
III. The focus of this discussion is directed toward the 
answering of questions included in the statement of the problem. 
The order of presentation is the same in this chapter as it was 
in Chapter III . 
Characteristics of Four-Year College Transfer Students 

This section discusses the data gathered from questions 
1 through 16, exclusive of question 12. 

Sex . In both groups of transfer students, the number of 
males slightly exceeded the number of females (by approximately 
10 percent) . This tends to concur with the findings of Rahaim 
(1974), Holmes (1971), and Wise (1968), but disagrees with the 
findings of Preus (1973) and Burke (1973) who found in their 
studies that females numerically equaled or exceeded males 
who transferred. The general enrollment at the University of 
Florida for fall quarter 1974 was 63 percent males and 37 per- 
cent female. In light of the findings of this study, it appears 
that females compose a greater percentage of students who 
transfer from other four-year colleges than of the total 
university student body. 

Race . Overwhelmingly, the race of four-year college 
transfer students to the University of Florida fall into the 

91 



92 



category of "Other," which reflects the general makeup of 
the University student body--93 percent "Other," and 7 percent 
minority group members. In this study, the race of students 
who transferred to the University of Florida generally re- 
flected the racial composition of the university, except for 
the number of Black Americans. The percentage of Black 
.'Americans who transferred (less than one percent) does not 
reflect the percentage of Black Americans in the overall 
student population at the University of Florida (1,187 out of 
a total population of 28,332 or 4 percent in the fall quarter 
1974) . Based upon this information, it appears that Black 
Americans for whatever reasons, are less likely to transfer 
to the University of Florida than 'A'hite Americans from other 
four-year colleges or universities. 

Marital Status . Most of the transfer students were single 
(90 percent) . This appears to be quite logical as it is much 
easier for a single person to move around than one who is 
married and has additional responsibilities. This figure 
(90 percent) is not reflective of the overall student popula- 
tion of the University of Florida. According to the University 
Registrar, 18 percent of the student body was married as of 
the fall quarter 1974. The findings of this study concur 
with the findings of Preus (1973) and Rahaim (1974), but dis- 
agree with Burke (1973) who found that more transfer students 
were married than single. The multi -college transfer student 
group has a greater percentage of students who were married 
(24 percent) . This researcher believes this is due to the 



93 



average age o£ the multi-college transfer student, which is 
higher than that o£ the one-college transfer student. Further, 
one of the reasons given by multi-college transfer students for 
transferring to the University of Florida was to be with their 
spouse. 

Age . The transfer student is a relatively young person 
in college. As mentioned in Chapter III, the great majority 
of students fall into the "20-23" age bracket (64 percent). 
This concurs with the findings of Rahaim (1974). This finding 
is also supported by the fact that in the Rahaim study, 82 
percent of the students who transferred from one four-year 
college to another had gone to their first college straight 
out of high school (p. 56). This agrees with the findings 
that for the one-college transfer student, the next largest 
age bracket was the "under 20" group (37 percent). However, 
the the next largest age group for the multi -college transfer 
student was the "24-29" age group bracket. Understandably, a 
student who had attended two or more colleges would tend to 
be older than one who had attended a single college. 

Payment of fees . In both groups, the majority of students 
were Florida residents (162 or 80 percent) . This would appear 
to be normal as the University of Florida is a public state 
university and therefore primarily serves the residents of the 
state of Florida. A possible interpretation of this fact is 
that most of those students who left the state of Florida to 
attend college did not establish residency at their new location 



94 



Living Arrangement . In both groups, the majority of 
students were living off-campus apart from their parents. 
This seems normal as most of the transfer students were 
sophomores or above and, as such, are not obligated to reside 
in a dormitory. Further, as would be expected due to higher 
average age and student classification, a greater percentage 
of multi-college transfer students (80 percent) were living 
off-campus apart from their parents than were one-college 
transfer students (65 percent). In this writer's opinion, 
students who had attended other universities could perhaps be 
considered to be more independent and self-sufficient and would 
therefore be less inclined to seek the security and more cir- 
cumscribed living arrangements of the college dormitory. The 
small percentage living in fraternity- sorority houses may be 
due to the fact that many transfer students, knowing that they 
will be at the University of Florida for only a short time, do 
not join or have no interest in joining a fraternity or sorority 

Veteran Status . Very few transfer students have been 
members of the United States Armed Forces before transferring 
to the University of Florida (13 out of 204 or 6 percent). 
Considering the relatively young age of the transfer students, 
it follows that they would be unlikely to have served in the 
armed forces. The findings of this study do not concur with 
the findings of Rahaim's study (1974) concerning veterans but 
this is due in part that Massachusetts' institutions have a 
special preference program for veterans and the University of 
Florida does not. This leads to the possible interpretation 



95 

that most of these transfer students came straight out of 
high school to go to college with no intervening military 
experience. 

Present Academic Major at the University of Florida . The 
number of different majors available at the University of 
Florida is quite spread out among 135 different departments. 
Based upon the majors identified by the transfer students, 
the researcher noted the following trends: 

1. Certain majors (i.e., Architecture, Journalism, 
Nursing, Pharmacy, etc.) were not found in many 
institutions except those comparable in size to 
the University of Florida. 

2. The largest number of majors were in the College 
of Arts and Sciences which has the largest upper 
division enrollment of any college at the University 
of Florida. 

3. Most of the transfer students knew which program they 
wanted or had already enrolled in the college of 
their choice (only 13 were undecided) . 

4. There is the possibility that some of these students 
transferred to the University of Florida as under- 
graduates to better insure their chance of getting 
into an upper division, professional or graduate 
school at the University. 

College or School Enrolled in Fall Quarter 1974 . The 
University College had the largest enrollment of transfer 



96 



students. Of the 204 transfer students, 103 were freshmen 
or sophomores, who are automatically assigned to the University 
College. Fewer multi-college transfer students are enrolled 
in University College because, for the most part, they are 
further along in their programs and are more likely to be 
juniors or seniors when they come to the University of Florida. 
It is expected that the largest upper division enrollment will 
be found in the College of Arts and Sciences because it is the 
largest upper division college on campus. 

Approximate Grade Point Average at Previous Institution . 
Most of the students who transfer to the University of Florida 
from other four-year colleges or universities are academically 
qualified as measured by their grade point average. The 
multi-college transfer students tend to have a higher grade 
point average than the one-college transfer student group. 
This concurs with the findings of Rahaim (1974) --that transfer 
students are a "good bet" to succeed at the receiving institu- 
tion. The findings of this study tend to disagree with the 
findings of the Illinois study (1971) that public college 
transfer students are likely to be in academic difficulty when 
they leave. This researcher found that only one student out 
of 204 estimated his grade point average to be less than a C. 
This also tends to refute the statement made by Eaton (1941) 
that one of the reasons transfer students change schools is 
because of failure at previous institutions of attendance. This 
group sampled in the present study showed little failure based 
upon their grade point average. Further, since one of the 



97 



University of Florida requirements for transfers is that the 
student be in good standing with the institution of previous 
attendance, one would not expect transfers to be characterized 
by academic failure. 

Financial Aid for First Quarter at the University of 
Florida . Very few transfer students in this sample requested 
financial aid. Evidently there is no need for such aid as 
financial difficulties were not noted as a major problem. 
Rahaim (1974) suggested that transfer students do not apply 
for financial aid because they feel they have no chance of 
getting it. This researcher believes the reason they do not 
apply is because they do not need it nor would they qualify for 
it. Very few of these transfer students work off-campus, most 
have been in college since high school, and most come from 
families with incomes over $15,000. 

Educational Goals . The findings of this study concur 
with the findings of Rahaim (1974) concerning educational goals. 
According to Rahaim, 47 percent of students who transferred 
from one four-year college to another planned to end their 
education at the Bachelor's level (p. 54). In this researcher's 
study, 41 percent of the multi-college transfer students and 
47 percent of the one-college transfer students planned to end 
their education at the Bachelor's level. It appears from this 
that multi-college transfer students, to a slightly greater 
degree than one-college transfer students, plan to stay in 
school a little longer. 



98 



Student C lassification, Fall Quarter 1974 . The findings 
of this study tend to concur with the findings of previous 
studies dealing with student classification (Preus, 1973; 
Eaton, 1943) which found the greatest number of one-college 
transfer students were sophomores. Having become disenchanted 
at the previous college as a freshman, it appears that the 
one-college transfer student has decided not to stay another 
year to see if things approve. 

For the multi-college transfer student, because of the 
number of colleges previously attended, he or she would 
naturally be further along in his or her program and would 
thus have accumulated a larger number of hours upon which 
classification is based at the University of Florida. A 
potential problem for these students may be delayed graduation 
due not to lack of hours but to inadequate type of credit hours. 

Stud ent Status, Fall Quarter 1974 . Four-year college 
students who transfer to the University of Florida are generally 
full-time students (89 percent of the multi-college transfer 
students and 96 percent of the one-college transfer students). 
These students do not have financial problems necessitating 
taking jobs which might cause them to limit the number of credit 
hours taken each quarter. 

Parents' Estimated A nnual Income . Most of these students 
come from families who can afford to send their children to 
college. Very few have applied for financial aid and very few 
of them work while attending college. Again, based upon age, 
marital status, and veteran status of these transfer students. 



99 



this researcher believes they are, to a large degree, still 
dependent upon their families for their college education. 
Of the 14 who did not state an income level, the most frequent 
response was that they were independent of their parents, and 
thus the question was irrelevant. The greater number of multi- 
college transfer students in the lower income brackets may 
explain, in part, the reasons that some of them have attended 
a public community college before attending the University of 
Florida (31 of 54) . 
Characteristics of Institutions Previously Attended 

This section discusses the data concerning the institution 
previously attended by four-year college transfer students to 
the University of Florida. 

The Institutions Previously Attended by Multi-College 
Transfer Students . Approximately one-fourth of this sample of 
transfer students falls into the category of multi-college 
transfer students. In terms of the initial population of 1,014 
transfer students, this would mean that over 250 of these trans- 
fer students probably attended two or more colleges. Approxi- 
mately 60 percent (32 of 54) have attended a college in Florida 
(either a two-year or four-year college) . Of these 32 transfer 
students, 8 attended a Florida community college, 6 attended 

Florida state university, and 18 attended both. No asso- 
ciation was found between this group of transfer students and 
the major problems identified in Chapter III of this study. It 
appears that these students, because they have attended public 
institutions in the state of Florida, fare better in the 



a 



100 

the transfer process than those students who attended two 
or more institutions out of the state of Florida. 

Type of Control . Of the 150 one-college transfer students 
sampled, over half (81) came from state controlled institutions. 
Of these 81, 39 came from institutions in the State University 
System of Florida. No association was found between this 
group of transfer students and major problems identified in 
Chapter III. This tends to disagree with the findings of 
Kintzer (1973) who believed that transfer students may encounter 
difficulty in transferring from one state institution to another 
in the same system. This appears not to be the case in Florida. 

No trend was identified regarding the kind of school 
(based on control) from which a student transferred to the 
University of Florida. About half of these students came from 
state-controlled institutions and the other half are divided 
between private and religiously affiliated colleges and uni- 
versities. 

Type of Student Body . Students, almost overwhelmingly, 
are leaving one coed college or university to attend another-- 
the University of Florida. There seems to be no major move- 
ment, based on the data in this study, from all-male or all- 
female colleges to coed colleges. 

Enrollment of Previous Institution . The University of 
Florida is the largest state university in the State University 
System of Florida and one of the larger universities in the 
nation. Enrollment for the fall quarter of 1974 reached 28,332. 



101 



Thus, one would expect the colleges and universities pre- 
viously attended by the transfer students to be smaller than 
the University of Florida. This would concur with the findings 
of Iffert (1958) who concluded that students transfer from 
smaller to larger colleges. A large number of students 
(approximately one-third) came from schools slightly smaller 
than the University of Florida (10,000 to 19,999). Many of 
these students in this category came from either the University 
of South Florida or Florida State University, each with enroll- 
ments of approximately 18,000. 

Location by State of Institutions Previously Attended . 
It is obvious from the data that location plays an important 
part in where a student decides to attend college. Studies 
by Eaton (1943) and Holmes (1971) showed that students tend 
to remain in the state or transfer from a nearby state. In 
this study, the greatest number of transfer students came from 
institutions in Florida (60). Of these students who trans- 
ferred to the University of Florida, 32 either attended Florida 
State University or the University of South Florida before trans- 
ferring. This is similar to the findings of Eaton (1943) in 
which a large number of transfer students to Indiana University 
came from two large universities in the state. Most of the 
students transferred from east of the Mississippi River and 
south of the Mason-Dixon Line. A surprisingly large number came 
from the Middle Atlantic states. 



102 



Reasons for Transferring 

Data gathered from questions 17 and 18 of the question- 
naire are discussed in this section. 

Reasons for Leaving Former College or University . The 
three major reasons identified by transfer students for leav- 
ing the former college were: 

1. Program non-existent or inadequate at previous 
institution 

2. Disappointed in program for which I was enrolled 

3. Lack of interest. 

These reasons seem quite compatible with the findings of 
Eaton (1941) and the North Carolina Joint Committee on College 
Transfer Students (1973) which concluded the major reason for 
transfer is academic. Lack of interest could be attributed 
to being in a program which is inadequate or disappointing. 
The perspectives of each transfer group differed on the fourth 
reason for leaving. One-college transfer students found the 
"academic program more difficult than anticipated" although 74 
percent of this group had estimated grade point averages of B 
or better. The multi-college transfer group felt that their 
"grades were too low," and yet only 19 percent of this group 
had an estimate grade point average of C or below. One-college 
transfer students appear to be more concerned with the academic 
program itself while multi-college transfer students appear to 
be concerned with the outcome of the academic programs-- 
grades--as well as the program itself. The findings of this 
study tend to disagree with one of the reasons suggested by 



103 



Meek (1974) as a reason for withdrawal - -financial reasons. 
As mentioned earlier, most of the transfer students did not 
apply for financial aid and most came from families with in- 
comes over $15,000. Nor does poor scholarship, as identified 
by Eaton (1941) appear to be a factor for leaving an institu- 
tion for these transfer students. Evidently, these transfer 
students leave an institution because that institution does 
not offer the kind or qualify of program they want. Therefore, 
one recourse is to transfer to an institution which has what 
they want. 

Reasons for Transferring to the University of Florida . 
The major reasons identified by both transfer groups was 
that the University of Florida offered a "Strong program in 
intended major." This seems to tie in very closely with the 
reasons given for leaving the previous institution- - lack of or 
inadequate program in major. These students hope that by 
transferring to the University of Florida they will be able to 
enroll in the program they desire. The "general impression of 
campus and students favorable" was ranked second by the one- 
college transfer students. This seems to tie in very closely 
with the theory espoused by Clark (1968) that the public image 
of a college influences choice. Evidently the atmosphere at 
the University of Florida is favorable enough to entice 
students to leave other colleges or universities. "General 
academic reputation of the University" was ranked second by the 
multi-college transfer student. This is substantiated in part 
by the higher estimated grade point average. "Close to home" 



104 



ranked fairly high for both groups. With so many of these 
transfer students being Florida residents, it appears that 
those who left the state to attend college may have under- 
estimated the desirability of remaining near home. The "Other" 
reason category seems to substantiate what has already been 
said- -students are transferring to the University of Florida 
so that they can enroll in a particular program which was 
either inadequate or did not exist at the previous institution 
they attended. 
Problems 

This section discusses the problems encountered by 
transfer students at the University of Florida. 

Academic Problems . Academic advising, either before or 
during registration, appears to be a major problem for trans- 
fer students. When one looks at the reasons given for leaving 
their previous institution of attendance, academic advising be- 
comes very important for these students. A large number of 
these transfer students are enrolling in programs which they 
were not previously enrolled in, or if enrolled in such a pro- 
gram, they considered it inadequate. Thus, they require 
adequate academic advisement. This need is further accentuated 
by another problem encountered by these students- -"loss of 
credits because courses were not accepted." Loss of credit and 
inadequate academic advisement have been identified as problems 
in previous studies (Sandeen 1974, Sistrunk 1974, and Willingham 
1972) . 



105 



Most of the academic problems in this study are problems 
that are outside of the classroom; yet, if these problems are 
not solved, the student will not be in the classes or programs 
which they want and/or need. The reasons many of these 
students transferred to the University of Florida is for a 
particular program and yet inadequate academic counseling and 
the loss of credits can only hamper this change they seek. 
It is obvious to this researcher that if the student is going 
to change majors, some credit will be lost. The transfer 
student should be aware of this. Adequate academic advisement 
should point this out including informing the students of the 
reasons for loss of credit. 

Procedural Problems . "Unable to register for course when 
needed when I first enrolled at the University because of late 
registration appointment" was identified by both groups as the 
major procedural problem. For students who have changed 
universities specifically for a certain program, this experience 
can be very frustrating. Upon arrival at the University, they 
cannot get the course or courses they need because of late 
registration appointment. The University of Florida does offer 
early registration but this is not available to students who 
are not enrolled the previous quarter. In many cases, late 
registration appointments result in the students choosing only 
courses which are still open rather than courses desired. 
The registration process at the University of Florida gives 
priority to those students who have 145 hours or more. In 



106 



this sample of transfer students, very few fall into this 
category (only 16 of 204). Enrollment limits also place a 
burden upon the transfer student, particularly if that enroll- 
ment limit is in the program for which he is intending to 
enroll . 

"Academic bureaucracy too cumbersome" ranked in the top 
five for both groups. Since all of the transfer students 
except 13 came from colleges and universities smaller than 
the University of Florida, one would expect them to be over- 
whelmed by the university's bureaucracy. "Orientation was 
inadequate" also rated in the top five for these transfer 
students. Although the University of Florida does conduct 
an orientation program for transfer students, a closer look 
may need to be taken to find out what is inadequate about 
orientation. One difficulty may result from providing one 
orientation program for the two major types of transfer students 
(two-year and four-year) without recognizing the different 
characteristics and needs of these two groups. 

Extracurricular Problems . The number of responses to 
extracurricular problems was considerably smaller than the 
number of responses to questions concerning the academic or 
procedural problems. "Meeting students" and "feeling at home" 
are the two major procedural problems identified by these 
transfer students. Perhaps because of the larger size of the 
university and the fact that most of these students are 
accustomed to smaller campuses, meeting people becomes a problem. 



107 



Interaction can be limited by the very size of the institution. 
The multi-college transfer student seems to have a greater de- 
gree of difficulty in "feeling at home" whether in his 
particular college, the University, or Gainesville. It may 
be that these multi-college transfer students continue to 
transfer because they cannot make themselves feel at home 
wherever they go. Many of these transfer students are seeking 
a change, a new environment with new people, and yet are en- 
countering difficulties when they make that change. 
Responses to Open-ended Question 

Most of the problems identified by the 73 transfer students 
who responded to this question concerned problems outside of 
the classroom. Summarizing the responses, the major problem 
seems to be getting into the right classes or program. This 
supports what has been discussed previously. 
Relationship of Characteristics to Major Problems 

Multi-college transfer students tend to identify more 
major problems than the one-college transfer students. One 
would think that after having transferred once already, this 
group of transfer students would be able to adjust more easily 
to the transfer process. Evidently this is not the case. 
In addition, they appear to have more problems in the extra- 
curricular areas. Again, one would think that having attended 
at least two other colleges, they would have less problems in 
adjusting. It may be that multi-college transfer students are 
significantly different than one-college transfer students and 
that they move around because they cannot seem to settle down 



108 



in one place and find what they are looking for. Another 
possible interpretation is that these multi-college transfer 
students, having attended two or more colleges, and thus 
possessing a wider range of college experiences than the one- 
college transfer students, may have a broader basis from which 
to draw comparisons and thus more clearly identify problems 
and shortcomings of the University of Florida. 

The data provided in Table 36 can be summarized to some 
degree by combining certain groups. For example, those 
students (87 of 150) who came from colleges with enrollments 
of 9,999 or less considered "academic advising was inadequate" 
at the University of Florida. Perhaps, at much smaller schools, 
the personal academic advising is more adequate. Students 
from colleges and universities, not state-controlled also 
found academic advising inadequate. Perhaps this can be 
attributed to size as most of these colleges and universities 
were smaller than the University of Florida. Those one-college 
transfer students seeking a degree beyond the Bachelor's also 
found academic advising was inadequate. Additional and more 
adequate advising may be necessary for those who are planning 
to pursue their education beyond the Bachelor's to insure 
requirements are met. 

Sophomores in both groups found academic advising inade- 
quate. This may be related to the fact that sophomores are 
automatically assigned to University College, and, evidently, 
academic advisement in the University College does not meet 
the needs of the sophomore transfer students. 



109 



One-college transfer students in the College of Arts and 
Sciences seem to have the most number of major problems of any 
of the other groups of transfer students. As the College of 
Arts and Sciences is the largest upper division college in the 
University, one might expect it to have proportionally more 
problems. However, it seems likely that inadequate academic 
advisement may also have played a part in increasing the number 
of problems encountered by the transfer students. 

Because the racial category "Other" includes such a large 
number of these transfer students sampled (194 of 204), evidently 
no one particular racial sub-group experiences a problem in 
academic advising. Obviously, a very large part of the transfer 
students felt that academic advising was inadequate. 

Multi -college transfer students who are non-Florida 
residents do not "feel at home at the University and/or 
Gainesville." A student from outside the state of Florida 
would be more likely to have this attitude than one who is 
familiar with the state and directly or indirectly, the Uni- 
versity of Florida. 
Relationship of Data to Adjustment Theory 

As mentioned in this researcher's review of literature, 
Arkoff identified three theories dealing with adjustment (1968). 
Included in each theory, but with varying emphasis, were the 
role of the individual and the role of the environment. In 
this study, the individuals were the students who transferred 
to the University of Florida and the environment the University 



110 



of Florida. The first theory identified by Arkoff placed the 
burden of adjustment on the individual. If a successful 
transition experience is measured by the number of transfer 
students still enrolled at the University of Florida (204 of 
213), a large number were successful. Even though these 
students identified a number of problems, they apparently 
overcame them. 

The second theory placed the burden of adjustment on the 
environment. The University of Florida seemed to place many 
demands on these transfer students as identified by the number 
of problems cited by these transfer students. The environment 
therefore does not appear to facilitate transfer as much as 
transfer students would wish it to. 

The third theory placed the burden of adjustment on both 
the individual and the environment. The data in this study 
seems to support this theory. Both the students and the 
University need to make certain adjustments in the transfer 
process. Many of the problems can be solved only by the 
University such as the registration process or academic advise- 
ment. Others can be partially alleviated by the students such 
as acceptance of the responsibility for loss of credit due to 

change of major. 

Summary 

These four-year college transfer students are, in some 

aspects, like other transfer students identified in previous 

studies of transfer students. Student classification exemplifies 



Ill 



this. This study revealed that most transfer students are 
either sophomores or juniors. Other studies of transfer 
students reached the same findings. At the same time, major 
differences between these transfer students and those studied 
by other researchers appeared. For example, studies of 
transfer students have shown that a significant number, par- 
ticularly those who transfer from two-year community colleges 
apply for financial aid. But in this study, most of the 
transfer students did not seek, or apparently need, financial 
aid. Major differences also exist between the two types of 
four-year college transfer students studied- -one-college and 
multi-college. They differed, for example, in age, marital 
status, and college in which enrolled fall quarter 1974. Multi- 
college transfer students tended to be slightly older, slightly 
more likely to be married, and slightly more likely to be en- 
rolled in upper division than one-college transfer students. 
At the same time, one-college and multi-college transfer students 
were similar in such characteristics as sex, race, and veteran 
status . 

For the most part, the institutions from which these 
students transferred are smaller than the University of 
Florida, are coed, and are located east of the Mississippi 
River and south of the Mason-Dixon Line. Because most other 
colleges and universities are smaller than the University of 
Florida, it is obvious that institutions previously attended 
by these transfer students would generally have smaller enroll- 
ment. It appears that most of these transfer students preferred 



112 



to attend college near home. 

Dissatisfaction with the academic programs at the previous 
college or university was the primary reason why these students 
transferred to the University of Florida. They believed the 
new institution would provide the type and/or quality of pro- 
gram not available at the previous institution. 

Even though multi-college transfer students, as a group, 
identified more major problems than one-college transfer 
students, more characteristics (both institutional and 
student) of one-college transfer students were associated with 
a major problem. The characteristic which appeared most often 
with major problems was one-college transfer students enrolled 
in the College of Arts and Sciences. This may be because of the 
size of the college as it is the largest upper-division at the 
University of Florida. It also seems that the problems of one- 
college transfer students are more associated with registration 
and academic advising. Multi -college transfer students, in 
addition to encountering difficulties in obtaining academic 
advisement and in registration, also have more problems outside 
of the classroom such as in meeting people and "feeling at home." 
It may very well be that one-college and multi-college transfer 
students are different enough to warrant further investigation. 



CHAPTER V 
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AMD IMPLICATIONS 

Summary 
The focus o£ this study centered on the characteristics 
of, and problems encountered by, students transferring from 
baccalaureate degree-granting institutions to the University 
of Florida, and on the characteristics of the institutions 
from which they transferred. Specifically, for a random sample 
of transfer students from baccalaureate degree-granting insti- 
tutions who entered the University of Florida in the fall 
quarter of 1974, answers to the following questions were sought: 

1. What are the student characteristics of those 
who transferred to the University of Florida 
in the fall quarter of 1974 from other four- 
year colleges and universities? 

2. What are the characteristics of the institu- 
tions from which these students transferred? 

3. What were the apparent reasons for transferring? 

4. Why did they select the University of Florida 
to complete their baccalaureate degree? 

5. What problems did these students encounter in 
transferring to the University of Florida 
before and after matriculation? 

6. Do the findings of this study support or refute 
theories dealing with adjustment in new situa- 
tions as summarized by Arkoff? 



113 



114 



Very little is known about students who transfer from 
baccalaureate degree-granting institutions- -either about the 
student's characteristics, the institution's characteristics, 
or the reasons they transfer. By knowing more about this 
group, colleges and universities can attempt to meet this 
group's academic and extra-curricular needs in a better way. 
This study was particularly focused upon the University of 
Florida and the four-year college student who transferred 
there. 

The data for this study were gathered during winter 
quarter, 1975. The data, which included student character- 
istics, reasons for transfer, and problems encountered, were 
obtained from a questionnaire developed by the researcher 
based, in part, upon previous studies by Eaton (1941), Iffert 
(1958), Holmes (1961), Preus (1973), Rahaim (1974), and 
Sistrunk (1974). The characteristics of the institutions from 
which these students transferred were categorized in The 
Yearbook of Higher Education (1973). The target population 
included all students who transferred to the University of 
Florida from baccalaureate degree-granting institutions in 
the fall of 1974. Based upon a formula developed by Hauskin, 
a random sample of 213 students was identified. A questionnaire, 
a letter of introduction and explanation, and a postage-free 
envelope were mailed to the students selected. Postcard 
reminders, telephone calls, and door-to-door visits were used 
to collect questionnaires not returned within 15 days. Fre- 
quency distributions were developed to identify the character- 



115 



istics of students and institutions, the reasons for transfer, 
and the problems encountered by these transfer students at the 
University of Florida. 

The following major findings emerged from the investi- 
gation. 

1. • Of the 204 transfer students studied, 150 (referred 
to as one-college transfer students] had attended only one 
four-year college and 54 (referred to as multi-college 
transfer students) had attended two or more colleges, at 
least one of which was a four-year college, prior to trans- 
ferring to the University of Florida. The two groups of 
transfer students identified were similar in some ways but 
different in others. Both groups of transfer students were 
more likely to be male than female; overwhelmingly members of 
the Caucasian race; single; relatively young; Florida residents; 
living off-campus apart from parents; non-veterans; likely 
to be enrolled in the University College or the College of 
Arts and Sciences; fairly high achievers based on previous 
academic grade point average; quite diversified in selection 
of academic major at the University of Florida; members of the 
sophomore or junior classes; enrolled full-time; from families 
with incomes over $15,000; and, for the most part, did not 
apply for financial aid. 

One-college transfer students, in comparison with multi- 
college transfer students, were much more likely to be single; 
more likely to be younger; more likely to enroll in the 



116 



University College; more likely to have a slightly lower 
grade point average; and more likely to come from families 
with comparatively higher incomes. In further comparing 
these two groups, the multi-college transfer students were 
more likely to be Florida residents; slightly more likely to 
live off-campus apart from parents; slightly more likely to 
plan to go beyond the Bachelor's degree; more likely to be 
further along in their program; and slightly more likely to 
be enrolled part-time. 

2. Only the characteristics of institutions attended 
by one-college transfer students were studied in detail. 
One-college transfer students were much more likely to move 
from a smaller college than from one larger than the University 
of Florida. Approximately one-half of the transfer students 
came from institutions which were state-controlled; the re- 
maining students were evenly divided between private and 
religiously-affiliated colleges. Overwhelmingly, the institu- 
tions from which they came were coed. The institutions were 
located mainly east of the Mississippi River and south of the 
Mason-Dxxon Lxne, with institutions in Florida being cited 
most frequently. Of the 54 multi-college transfer students 
identified, 32 attended at least one public college or uni- 
versity in Florida other than the University of Florida. 
3. The major reasons identified by both groups of 
transfer students for leaving the institution of previous 
attendance was that the academic program in which they were 



117 



enrolled was inadequate or the program they desired was 
non-existent. Another major reason identified was the lack 
o£ interest in some aspect of the college on the part of the 
student . 

4. The major reasons for transferring to the University 
of Florida were that the University possessed a strong program 
in the intended major and that the general and academic image 
conveyed by the University of Florida to transfer students was 
favorable . 

5. The greatest number of problems identified by 
transfer students were procedural (389 responses) , followed 
by academic (295 responses) , and extracurricular (200) . 

In all categories, the average number of responses per student 
was greater for multi-college transfer students than for one- 
college transfer students. 

6. The major academic problem identified by both groups 
of transfer students was "Academic advising was inadequate." 
In addition, multi-college transfer students identified "Loss 
of credits because courses were not accepted" as a major 
problem. 

7. The major procedural problems identified by both 
groups of transfer students dealt with orientation, registra- 
tion, and the "Academic bureaucracy." In addition, one-college 
transfer students identified a delay in mailed communications 
as a problem. Multi-college transfer students complained of 
the lack of adequate off-campus housing information. 



118 



8. One-college transfer students identified only one 
extracurricular problem as ma jor- -"Meeting students." Multi- 
college transfer students identified three additional extra- 
curricular problems as maj or- -"Feeling at home" in the school 
or college; "Feeling at home" at University and/or Gainesville; 
and obtaining desired counseling services. 

9. The type of problems identified by one-college and 
multi-college transfer students were the same in some respects, 
and different in others. The major problems identified by 
these groups were similar in the area of academic and pro- 
cedural problems, the main differences being that multi-college 
students identified a slightly larger number of problems. The 
extracurricular area provided more problems for multi-college 
transfer students than for one-college transfer students. 

10. Of the 33 problems listed on the questionnaire by 
this researcher, multi-college transfer students identified 
12 as major and one-college transfer students identified 8 
as major. 

11. Very few relationships existed between character- 
istics and problems, as interpreted by this researcher. Of 
the 13 major problems identified, only 7 were associated with 
some type of institutional or student characteristic. Of the 
characteristics associated with major problems, most were in- 
stitutional characteristics such as the size of the school 
transferred from (smaller) , colleges enrolled in at the 
University of Florida (mainly the College of Arts and Sciences), 
and class in which enrolled (sophomore). 



119 



Conclusions 
In light of the six questions raised in the first 
chapter of this study, and in light of the data gathered, 
the following conclusions are presented: 

1. There are two major classifications of students 

who transfer from baccalaureate degree-granting institutions- - 
one-college transfers and multi-college transfers. Approxi- 
mately three-fourths of the transfer students in this sample 
were of the one-college classification while one-fourth were 
of the multi-college type. 

2. The racial make-up of transfer students in this 
sample was overwhelmingly Caucasian. Minority group members 
were proportionally less in the transfer population than in 
the general student population at the University of Florida. 

3. The percentage of females who transferred from other 
baccalaureate degree-granting institutions was higher than the 
percentage of females in the general student population at 
the University of Florida. 

4. Transfer students in both groups were, for the most 
part, single. 

5. Most of the students who transferred to the University 
of Florida were residents of the state of Florida, even though 
many attended their first college out of the state of Florida. 

6. For the most part, these transfer students do not 
apply for financial aid. Many of these students come from 
families with annual incomes of $15,000 or more and attended 
private or out of state colleges and universities which require. 



120 



in many cases, a higher tuition than an in-state public 
university. It appears these students do not need financial 
aid. 

7. Previous grade point average appears to be a good 
indicator of academic success at the University of Florida. 
After one quarter at the University of Florida, only 9 out 
of 213 had withdrawn from the University. 

8. For the most part, these transfer students are non- 
veterans, relatively young (24 or less), and live off-campus 
apart from parents. 

9. Most of these students transfer at the beginning 
of either their sophomore or junior years. Over one-half of 
these transfer students were enrolled in the University College, 
with the next largest group of students enrolled in the College 
of Arts and Sciences. 

10. The major reasons for leaving the previous college 
of attendance was that the college was inadequate in some 
respect. These students transferred to the University of 
Florida because the University conveyed the image, both 
general and academic, of being adequate or more than adequate 
in meeting their personal needs, academic and extracurricular. 

11. The major problems faced by transfer students are 
not in the classroom. The major problems identified dealt 
with getting into the right classes. This requires adequate 
counseling and registration appointments early enough to allow 
for enrollment in the proper classes. It appears to this re- 
searcher that many of these students transferred to the 



121 



University of Florida to enroll in a particular major, but 
once they got to the University, they faced a problem of 
getting into the classes associated with their particular 
program of interest. 

12. Based upon the problems identified by transfer 
students (such as size of classes and academic bureaucracy) , 
the smaller size of the institutions previously attended when 
compared with the larger size of the University emphasizes 
problems usually associated with size. The new larger en- 
vironment appears to complicate adjustment of individual 
students . 

13. Very few relationships exist between characteristics, 
either student or institutional, and major problems encountered 
in transferring. Multi-college transfer students tend to have 
more problems in the extracurricular area than do one-college 
transfer students. The multi-college transfer student has 
difficulty in "meeting people" and "feeling at home." This 

may be the very reasons they are transferring so often- -an 
inability to "meet people" and "feel at home" at the previous 
colleges attended. 

14. Of the three adjustment theories summarized by 
Arkoff, the findings of this study tend to support the third 
one--the success of the transition experience is dependent 
upon both the individual and the environment interacting in 
such a way as to promote adjustment. The transfer student 
must realize that certain demands will be placed upon him 



122 



because he is a transfer student. At the same time, however, 
the University can facilitate the transition experience by- 
being sensitive to these demands by keeping them to a minimum 
and by providing transfer students with the additional help 
which will aid them in understanding and meeting the new demands 

Implications 

This section will discuss the implications the findings 
of this study have for the University of Florida and for 
further research. 
Implications for The University of Florida 

The following implications for the University of Florida 
are derived from the findings of this study. 

1. Based upon an analysis of the characteristics of 
the transfer students sampled in this study, it would appear 
that these students require little attention from the follow- 
ing services at the University of Florida- -veteran affairs, 
student financial aid, student services for international 
students, and minority affairs. 

2. At present, there appears to be no pressure for any 
formal type of articulation agreement between state universities 
in the State University System in Florida as the students who 
transferred from other State University System universities 
identified no major problems. However, in the future, if 
enrollment limitations are set for selected colleges in some 

of the institutions, a need for some clearly identified pro- 
cedures which will facilitate movement from one unit of the 
State University System to another may be needed. 



123 



3. Those students who come from private or religiously- 
affiliated colleges in Florida and those students who come 
from colleges and universities outside of the state of Florida 
do encounter specific problems in transferring to the University 
of Florida. The University of Florida should examine those 
programs and procedures which involve these transfer students 

in particular. 

4. Inadequate academic advisement was identified as 
a major problem by the majority of the transfer students. 
Perhaps there is a need to designate an academic adviser(s) 
for those students who transfer from four-year colleges 
located out of Florida and private colleges and universities 
within Florida. These students, because they come from 
colleges with different operating procedures, identify specific 
difficulties here at the University of Florida. This is com- 
pounded by the fact that many of these students indicated 

that they lost credit while transferring to the University of 
Florida. These students need to know exactly what courses they 
need to graduate in the program of their choice. In addition, 
there appears to be a need for a review of the reasons for 
loss of credit--to find out why students lose credit and what, 
if anything, can be done to facilitate the transfer of credit 
so that both the transfer student and the University keep the 
loss of credit to a minimum. 

5. Transfer students are often assigned registration 
appointments at a late date and are adversely affected by the 



124 



enrollment limitations normally on certain programs. These 
registration difficulties represent major problems to transfer 
students. Presently at the University of Florida, a student's 
registration appointment is based upon his or her social security 
number, with the exceptions of seniors who have priority in 
registration. Transfer students receive no special considera- 
tion. The registration procedures should consider the special 
needs of a group who have selected the University of Florida 
because of program preferences. Registration procedures should 
not be permitted to frustrate the reasons for coming to the 
University of Florida. Registration should allow all students, 
whether native or transfer, an opportunity to enroll in the 
courses they need to meet graduation requirements with a mini- 
mum loss of time and effort. Presently, there is a means of 
obtaining courses which have closed out in registration. Trans- 
fer students need to be made aware of this procedure. 

6. Presently at the University of Florida, two orien- 
tation programs are conducted- -one for freshmen and another for 
transfer students. Four-year college transfer students appear 
to be different enough, in some characteristics, from two- 
year college transfer students to warrant that certain aspects 
of orientation be modified to meet their specific needs. In 
order to find out what those needs are, a follow-up study with 
a random sample of these transfer students could be conducted 
to identify problems of orientation and ways in which orienta- 
tion could be improved. 



125 



7. Approximately 72 percent of the transfer students 
sampled in this study lived off-campus while attending the 
University of Florida. In order to provide adequate off- 
campus housing information, the office of housing should 
insure that the prospective transfer student be made aware of 
the availability of off-campus housing in Gainesville for the 
quarter the student xs planning to enroll. Special attention 
should be given to the fall quarter since it is often the most 
difficult quarter for a new student to find adequate housing; 
it is also the quarter when many of these students matriculate 
at the University of Florida for the first time. 

8. At present, the transfer student must write to 
several separate offices to request information about their 
services. Perhaps a more efficient means of providing infor- 
mation to the prospective transfer student might be to provide 
a list of campus organizations and services to him when initial 
contact is made. The transfer student could then indicate 
which organizations from which he would like to receive 
additional literature. 

9. In order to respond the problems of transfer students, 
particularly the multi-college transfer student, the University' 
of Florida should offer small group sessions in which these 
students can discuss, and hopefully solve, problems, particu- 
larly those which deal with meeting people and feeling com- 
fortable at the University. A counselor attuned to the specific 
needs and problems of these students should be available. 



126 



10. Any change in the organization of the University of 
Florida in response to problems encountered by transfer 
students must be compatible with all students who attend the 
University, including native students and students who trans- 
fer from two-year colleges. Some of the problems encountered 
by four-year college transfer students are also encountered by 
two-year transfer students and by native students. 

11. The University of Florida should have some type of 
mechanism which allows for periodic evaluation of its programs 
for the various groups which make up the total student popu- 
lation at the University of Florida. This would profit both 
the native students and the transfer students. Unless the 
University knows whether it is meeting the needs of these 
transfer students, it cannot be of help to them when they 
transfer to the University of Florida. 

Implications for Further Research 

Based upon the findings of this study it is apparent 
that the following research may be needed to expand the 
knowledge about four-year college transfer students and their 
problems . 

1. Although only 9 out of 213 transfer students sampled 
dropped out after one quarter, there is a need for a follow-up 
study after one year to see how many of these transfer students 
are still enrolled at the University of Florida and how many 
complete their goal (i.e. their degree programs). 

2. Multi-college transfer students seem significantly 



127 



different from one-college transfer students. They encounter 
more problems on the average than do one-college transfer 
students. There is a need to investigate the multi-college 
transfer student and find out if there are commonly identified 
characteristics which will shed light upon the reasons they 
transfer and which will help to suggest ways to meet their 
specific needs. 

3. If the environment (the University of Florida) can 
be changed to serve the specific needs of transfer students 
in particular, continued studies should be carried out which 
will identify those changes which will be needed. 



APPENDICIES 



APPENDIX A 
Questionnaire Used to Gather Data 

QUESTIONS FOR STUDENTS WHO TRANSFERRED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 
PART I --STUDENT INFORMATION 

Directions: Circle the correct response 

(include both the letter and answer) 

1. Sex: a. male b. female 

2 Race: a. American Indian b. Black c. Oriental 

d Spanish Surname American e. All other (including 

Caucasian) 

3. Marital Status: a. Single b. Married c. Widowed 
^ d. Divorced e. Legally Separated 

4. Age: a. Under 20 b. 20-23 c. 24-29 d. 30 or over 

5 Payment of Fees: a. Considered Florida resident 

^' ^ b. Considered non-Florida resident 

6 Living Arrangement: a. Off -campus (apart from Parents 

b. Off-campus (with parents) c. Residence Hall 
d. Sorority-Fraternity House 

7 Previously a member of some branch of U. S. Armed Forces: 

a. Yes b. No 

8. Academic Major at the University of Florida: ■_ 

9. College Enrolled in Fall Quarter 1974: . 



10. Approximate Grade Average at previous institution: 
a. A b. B c. C d. D 

11 Financial Aid for First Quarter at the University of 

plS^ida: a. Did not apply b. Applied but no reply 
c! Applied but did not'receive d. Received scholarship 
e Received loan (National, State, or local) f. Basic 
Educational Opportunity Grant g. Part-time employment 
with UniversitV (work-study) h. Part-time work off- 
campus iGI Mil 3- A combination of two or more of 
the above--please circle which ones: a. b. c. a. e. 
f. g. h. i. 



129 



130 



12. College(s) previously attended before the University of 
Florida: a. b. 



13. Educational Goals: a. BA or BS b. Masters c. Doctorate 

d. Professional (Law, Medicine, etc.) e. Other 

14. Student Classification Fall 1974: a. Fr. b. Soph, 
c. Jr. d. Sr. e. 5-year student 

15. Student Status Fall 1974: a. Full-time (12 hours or more) 
b. Part-time (11 or less hours) 

16. Estimated parents' annual income: a. Less than $6,000 

b. $6,000-9,999 c. $10,000-14,999 d. $15,000-19,999 

e. $20,000 or more 

PART II --REASONS FOR TRANSFER 

17. What were your principal reasons for leaving your former 
college or university? (Place a 1 by your first choice, 
2 by your second choice, etc.) 

a. Disappointed in the program for which I was enrolled 

b. Found the academic program more difficult than I 
anticipated 

c. Felt the instruction was inadequate 

d. Unable to finance education there 

e. Health reasons 

f. Grades were low 

g. Marriage 

h. Conditions at home 

i. Inability to adjust to social environment of the college 

j. Inability to adjust to academic environment of the college 

k. Lack of interest 

1. A desire to improve my education elsewhere 

Inability to adjust to certain rules and regulations 



m 



of college 
n. Other: Please state 



18. What were your principle reasons for transferring to the 
University of Florida? (Please a 1 by your first choice, 

2 by your second choice, etc.) 

a. Inexpensive 

b. Close to home 

c. Friends were here 

d. General academic reputation of the University 

e. Strong program in intended major 
£. Financial aid opportunities here 

g. General impression of campus and students favorable 



131 



h. Opportunity for independent study, overseas study 

or honors program 
i. Felt had better opportunity to succeed here 
j . Parental influence 
k. Suggestion of counselor or academic advisor's 

influence at previous college 
1. Social atmosphere 
m. Other: please state 



PART III --PROBLEMS 

19. What real difficulties , if any, did you experience as a 
transfer student in transferring and eventually attending 
the University of Florida in the area of academics? 
(Circle each response that presented a real difficulty 
for you.) 

a. Lost credits because courses were not accepted 

b. Taking examinations (not conditioned to or familiar 
with types of exams given) 

c. Meeting student academic competition 

d. Lost credits because credit units were reduced 

e. Academic advising was inadequate 

£. Lost credits because I changed major 

g. Academic advising was unavailable at registration 

h. Poor faculty-student relationship in some courses 

affected my work adversely 
i. Unable to participate in independent study, overseas 

study, or honors program because I was a transfer 

student 
j . Lack of uniform evaluation (grading) 
k. Difficulty in meeting academic demands (assignments, 

papers, projects) 
1. Other: please state 

20. What real difficulties , if any did you experience as a 
transfer student in transferring and eventually attending 
the University in the area of procedures? (Circle each 
response that presented a real difficulty for you.) 

a. Delay in mailed communications when first applying 
to the University 

b. Informational publications were not adequate for me 

c. Information requested on applications was not 
appropriate for transfer student 

d. On-campus housing information and application were 
not available or not sent 

e. Off-campus housing information was not available 
or not sent 

f. Financial aid information was not available or sent 



132 



g. Time lapse between submission o£ application for 
admission and notification of acceptance was too 
long. Please specify how long/ 

h. Delay in evaluation of academic credit 

i. Orientation was inadequate 

j . Unable to register for course needed when I first 
enrolled at the University because of late regis- 
tration appointment 

k. Unable to register in certain programs because of 
enrollment limits 

1. Academic bureaucracy too cumbersome 

m. Other: please state 

21. What real difficulties , if any, did you encounter as a 

transfer student in transferring and eventually attending 
the University of Florida in areas outside the classroom? 
(Circle each response that presented a real difficulty for 
you.) 

a. Obtaining counseling services 

b. Obtaining financial aid 

c. Participation in student activities ( intramurals , 
clubs, drama, etc.) 

d. Participation on committees or task forces dealing 
with institutional governance at the University 
(student government, administrative and faculty 
committees with student membership) 

e. "Feeling at home" in school or college at University 
£. "Feeling at home" at University and/or Gainesville 
g. Making friends 

h. Meeting students 

i. Other: please state 



22. Did you experience any problem or difficulty that has not 
been identified already in this questionnaire? If so, 
please describe the problem or difficulty. 



If there is any additional information that you would like to 
convey to me personally, please put a check in the following 
space . I will then contact you personally. 

THANK YOU. 



APPENDIX B 
Request Letter to Transfer Students 



January 27, 1975 



Dear Transfer Student 



Most people are very surprised to learn that more than 1,000 
students each year transfer from other four-year colleges to 
the University of Florida. Your help is needed in a study to 
determine some of the problems that YOU and other four-year 
college transfer students encountered in transferring to the 
University of Florida. 

Your cooperation should provide information which will assist 
administrators at the University of Florida in making adjust- 
ments in policy and programs that affect you and other transfer 
students, both now and in the future. This study is being 
carried out under the University of Florida's Institute of 
Higher Education and has also been endorsed by Dr. Thomas Goodale, 
Dean of Student Services. 

The information obtained from the enclosed questionnaire will 
remain confidential. You name will not appear in the results of 
this study. However, since we are using a scientifically de- 
veloped sampling procedure, we need your specific reply. 

Completion of the enclosed questionnaire will be greatly appre- 
ciated. It should take approximately 5 to 10 minutes. 

Your prompt attention to this may result in fewer problems for 
you and other four-year college transfer students. If there are 
any questions, please feel free to call me. My home phone is 
373-4805 and my office phone is 392-0746. Return of the 
questionnaire by February 3 would be very much appreciated. 
Enclosed is a return addressed envelope. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Carl M. Hite 

Carl M. Hite 

W. K. Kellogg Fellow 

Institute of Higher Education 



133 



APPENDIX C 
First Follow-up Letter 



Feb. 10, 1975 



Dear Transfer Student, 

On January 26, I mailed to you a questionnaire regarding 
four-year college transfer students to the University of 
Florida. If you have not completed the questionnaire, 
please do as soon as possible, as your input is very 
essential to successful completion of the study. If you 
have not received a questionnaire, please call me at 
373-4805. Thank you. 

Sincerely , 

/s/ Carl M. Hite 

Carl M. Hite 

Institute of Higher Educ 

University of Florida 



134 



APPENDIX D 
Second Follow-up Letter 

Feb. 21, 1975 

Dear Transfer Student, 

URGENT I I I Without your completed questionnaire concerning 
transfer students, the University of Florida cannot make 
changes in its programs to help you. Please send the com- 
pleted questionnaire as soon as possible. Any questions, 
call 373-4805. Ask for Carl Hite. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Carl M. Hite 

Carl M. Hite 

Institute of Higher Education 

University of Florida 



135 



REFERENCES 



Anstett, R.R. Study of transfer student's perceptions of a 
campus environment. N.A.S.P.A. Journal , January 1973, 
10, 198-205. 

Arkof f , A. Adjustment and mental health . New York: McGraw- 
Hill Company, 1968. 

Barger, B. and others. Transfer students speak out . Bethesda, 
Ma.: National Institute of Mental Health, 1968. 

Buckley, H.D. A comparison of freshmen and transfer expecta- 
tions. Journal of College Student Personnel , May 1971, 
1_2, 186-189. 

Burke, B.H. Changing needs in transfer admissions: Build 
policy from the data. College and University , Winter 
1973, 48, 69-79. 

Burt, S. An overview of the dimemma of the college under - 
graduate transfer student . Washington, D.C . : U"! S7 
Office of Education, 1972. 

Characteristics of college students: Survey of Florida 

public universities, fall 1969 . Tallahassee: Board 
of Regents, 1970. 

Clark, R.C. College image and student selection. In K. 
Yamamoto (Ed.), The college student and his cultur e: 
An analysis . Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968. 

Coelho, H.D. and Murphey, E. Coping strategies in a new 

learning environment. In K. Yamamoto (Ed.), The colleg e 
student and his culture: An analysis . Boston: Houghton 
Mifflin, 1968. 

Conrad, D.M. Study of students transferring to Indiana State 
Teacher's College from other colleges and universities. 
Teacher's College Journal , January 1951, 2_2, 73-78. 

Data book on Illinois higher education . Springfield, Illinois: 
Illinois State Board of Higher Education, 1974. 



136 



137 



Bearing, B.G. Substantive issues in the transfer problem. In 
College transfer. Workin.^ papers and recommendations from 
the Airlie House conference 2-4 December 1973 . Washington, 
B.C. : Association Transfer Group, April 1974, 26-49. 

Eaton, M.T. Study of students transferring from Indiana Uni- 
versity. Indiana University School Educational Bulletin , 
November 1941, 1^, 1-24. " ~ 

Eaton, M.T. Study of students transferring to Indiana University 
from other colleges and universities. Indiana University 
School Educational Bulletin , May 1943, 19^, 1-35. 

Fact Book . Gainesville, Fl.: Office of Academic Affairs, Uni- 
versity of Florida, 1972. 

Fact Book . Tallahassee: State University System of Florida, 1973 

Furniss, W.T. and Martin, M.Y. Toward solving transfer problems. 
In College transfer. Working papers and recommendations 
from the Airlie House conference 2-4, December 1973 . 
Washington, D.C.: Association Transfer Group, April 1974. 

Goodale, T. and Sandeen, A. Transfer student: A research report. 
N.A.S.P.A. Journal , April 1971, 8, 248-263. 

Guidelines fo r transfers: Recommendations of the joint committee 

on college transfer students: Chapel Hill: North Carolina 

University, 1973. 

Hauskin, C.A. Establishing sample size. Journal of Research 
Services , December 1973, 3, 1-4. 

Holmes, C.H. Case study of the four-year transfer student. 
College and University , Spring 1971, 36, 322-329. 

Iffert, R. Retention and withdrawal of college students . 
Washington, D.C.: U. S. Office of Education, 1958. 

Kintzer, F.C. Middleman in Higher Education . San Francisco: 
Jossey-Bass, 1973. 

Kintzer, F.C. The transfer student dimension of articulation. 
In'college transfer working papers and recomm endations of 
the^TFli^ House conference 2-4, December 1973 . Washington, 
D.C. : Association Transfer Group, April 1974a. 

Kintzer F.C. Upd ating statewide articula tion practices. Un- 
published manuscript. University ot California, Los Angeles, 
1974b. 

Knoell, D.M. and Medsker, L.L. From Junior to Senior College: ^ 
A National Study of the Transfer Student. Washington, B.C.. 
American Council on Education, 1965. 



138 



Meek, P. Withdrawal study: Preliminary data from 1974 

' winter quarter . Unpublished manuscript, University of 
Florida, 1 9 7 4. 

Meskill, V.P. and Sheffield, W. Research on transfer students: 
A review of the literature. College Student Journal , 
September-October 1971, 5, 94-105. 

Preus, P. An investigation of student's perception of the 
process of transferring to Memphis State University . 
Memphis: Memphis State University, 1973. 

Rahaim, C.A. Summary profile of the transfer students at 

selected four-year educational institutions m Massachusetts 
(Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1974). 
Dissertation Abstracts International , 1974, 3^, 2730-A. 
(University Microfilms No. 74-25863) 

Ritt L. The relationships between role conflict, satisfaction, 
'and the drop-out potential of college students. (Doctoral 
Dissertation, University of Florida, 1970). Dissertation 
Abstracts International , 1970, 31, 6910B-6911B. 
(University Microfilms No. 71-13453) 

Rose, H.A. and Elton, C.F. Personality characteristics of 

transfer students. Journal of College Student Personnel , 
July 1970, U, 266-270. 

Sandeen, A. and Goodale, T. The transfer studen t: Recommenda- 
tions for institutional policies and programs . Unpub- 
lished manuscript, University of Florida, April 1974. 

Sistrunk, A.W. A study of transfer problems among four-year 
and two-year universities in Florida. (Doctoral Disser- 
tation, University of Florida, 1974). Dissertation 
Abstracts International, 1974, 3_5, 3472A-3473A. 
(University Microfilms No. 74-2 7,88 8) 

State University System Report-3 Fall 1973 . Tallahassee: 
Board of Regents, 1973. 

Toffler, A. Future Shock . New York: Bantom Books, 1972. 

Transfer of credit among Washington institutions of higher 

education: A study to determine how much credit is lost 
and what kinds of programs are accepted . Olympia, 
Washington: Washington State Council on Higher Educa- 
tion, 1973. 

Transfer students in Illinois: Where do they go and how well 
do they succeed. North Central Association Quarterly , 
Fall 1971, 46, 295-306. 



139 



Trivett, D.A. New developments in college transfer. Research 
Currents , September 1974, 1^, 1-5. 

The un iversity record of the University of Florida: Under - 
graduate catalog issue . Gainesville, Fl.: The 
University of Florida, March 1974. 

Van Alstyne, C. The high cost of transferring: The impact 
of transferring on the financing of post - secondary 
education for students and institutions. In College 
transf er: Working papers and recommendations from the 
Airlie House conference Z-4, December 1975~ Washington, 
D.C. : Association Transfer Group, April 1974, 128-142. 

Warlick, H.A. A study of admission policies and practices 

for transfer students in Virginia. (Doctoral Dissertation, 
University of Virginia, 1971). Dissertation Abstracts 
International , 1971, 3^, 4364A. (University Microfilms 
No. 72-07133) 

Willingham, W.W. The no. 2 access problem: Transfer to the 
upper division . Washington, D.C: American Association 
for Higher Education, 1972. 

Willingham, W.W. Transfer standards and the public interest. ^^ 
In College transfer. Working papers and recommendations 
from the Airlie House conference, 2-4 December 1975 . 
Washington, D.C: Association Transfer Group, April 
1974, 26-49. 

Willingham, W.W. amd Findikyan, N. Transfer students: Who's 
moving from where to where, and what determines who's 
admitted? College Board Review, Summer 1972, IJ^, 4-12. 

Winandy, D.H. and McGrath, R.G. Study of admissions policies 
and practices of transfer students in Illinois. College 
and University , Winter 1970, 45, 86-91. 

Wise, M.W. They come for the best of reasons - -College students 
'today. Washington, D.C: American Council on Education, 
1968. 

Wise, M.W. and Gunnere, R.G. College transfer: A study of the 
reaction of colleges and universities to eight candidates. 
Educational Record , July 1962, 43_, 228-244. 

Yearbook of Higher Education . Orange, New Jersey: Academic 
Media, 1973. 



BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 

Carl M. Hite was born April 2, 1946, in Honolulu, 
Hawaii. He was graduated from Westhampton Beach High School, 
in Westhampton Beach, New York, in 1963. In March 1969, he 
received a Bachelor of Arts degree in History from Florida 
State University. 

In September 1969, he entered the University of Florida 
where he received his Master of Arts in Teaching in August 
1970, in American History. 

For the next three years (1970-1973) he taught and 
coached in public secondary schools in Duval and Alachua 
counties in Florida. 

In 1973 he entered the University of Florida and was 
awarded a W. K. Kellogg Fellowship for advanced study in 
higher education administration. 

He is married to Clare E. Hite of Ft. Myers, Florida and 
they have one child, Kevin. 

He is a member of the Phi Delta Kappa professional 
education fraternity, the American Personnel and Guidance 
Association, and the American College Personnel Association. 



140 



I certify that I hove read this study anci that in my 
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly 
presentation and is fully ad quate, in scop: and quality, as 
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 





liies L. Wattenbarger, uhair 
professor of Education 



man 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my 
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly 
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as 
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 

Harold C. Riker 
Professor of Education 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my 
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly 
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as 
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of ' Philosophy . 




^o< 



essor 



V^'O^^ 



Ci^' 



Henry 
of Hi: 



ory 



^ 



This dissertation was submitted to tlic Graduate Faculty of the 
College of Education and to the Graduate Council and was 
accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the 



degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 



August, 197 5 



6.iIkA, 4 ^/^/3^/^ 



Dean, College of flcTuciition 



Dean, Graduate School 



-;7^- 



y 



)V<^' 



7.5. 3 00. %i 



:^ c^f f Ui-L ^^"^-^ ^'^ '^■ 



S. S^